Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology

Comprehensive comparison and conceptual analysis of cross-cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologies in terms of their aims and theoretical and methodological perspectives lead to the conclusion that the first two are special cases of the third. Two basic types of indigenous psychology are distinguished on the basis of conceptual analysis: monocultural indigenous psychologies (including monocultural cultural psychologies) and cross-cultural indigenous psychologies (including both cross-cultural psychology and cross-cultural cultural psychology). Corresponding to these two types of indigenous psychology are two basic ways to conduct indigenous research, namely, the monocultural indigenous approach and the cross-cultural indigenous approach. Both approaches require achievement of the condition of indigenous compatibility, which stresses the sufficient congruity of the researcher's theory, methods, and results with the studied psychological or behavioral phenomenon and/or its sociocultural context. Finally, several ways to integrate research findings obtained by the monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches are delineated and discussed with respect to their function in creating an indigenously derived global psychology.     

Gathering a few thoughts on ‘Neo‐Confucian epistemology and Chinese philosophy’

In Neo‐Confucian Epistemology and Chinese Philosophy: Practical Postulates for Actioning Psychology as a Human Science, Professor Liu offers a critique of the Cartesian underpinnings of psychology as a natural science. Drawing on Chinese cultural postulates, Professor Liu offers a vision for a global psychology more orientated towards the morally centered person and which developed a culturally‐informed ethics. This commentary explores the implications of this rethinking of psychology for indigenous and applied social psychologies in Aotearoa/New Zealand.     

Issues in the study of indigenous psychologies: historical perspectives, cultural interdependence and institutional regulations

This paper aims to present a critical analysis of the development of indigenous psychologies within the western and non–western contexts. The rhetoric of indigenous psychologies is cross–examined to include historical perspectives, cultural interdependence and institutional regulations. The paper also examines the processes of psychologizing indigenous views that are largely regulated by the powerful social agencies. The paper endeavors to draw a link between historical perspectives and post–historical cultural interdependence in order to explicate the contentious issues of 'micro and macro indigenous psychologies', both within and beyond western indigenous psychologies. The importance of the cross–fertilization of knowledge from diverse indigenous psychologies for the development of a global indigenous psychology is reaffirmed.     

The sociocultural movement in psychology,the role of theories in sociocultural inquiries,and the theory of sociocultural models

This special issue presents the theory of sociocultural models (TSCM) and its applications in diverse areas of psychology, including education, health care, clinical practice, gender relations, and general research. As many theories already exist in the social sciences, some readers may ask: “Why do cross‐cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologists need another theory?” This question is comprised of two aspects: culture/cultural and theory/theoretical. Therefore, to answer it, it is important to clarify both issues. The first relates to cultural and its relation to psychological. The second, theory, considers its relation to cultural and psychological. These issues have long‐range implications for all culture and psychology disciplines as they pose many questions: What role does culture play in the mental functioning of people? How is culture constituted? Is cultural related to social? Does people’s mental functioning exert reciprocal influences on their cultural and social functioning? While working toward answering these questions, researchers quickly determine that more questions arise: What role should theories play in answering these questions? What constitutes theory in culture and psychology disciplines? How should such a theory (or such theories) address the triad of cultural, social, and mental? Consequently, in an effort to provide an overview of the TSCM and to begin to answer these questions, this introduction consists of two parts. The first part addresses the sociocultural turn in modern psychology; this part discusses its implications for research in culture and psychology disciplines. The second segment examines the topic of the theoretical backgrounds of cultural and cross‐cultural research and connects the philosophical paradigms of interpretivism and realism with the theory of sociocultural models. This introduction concludes with a brief overview of the articles included in this issue.     

Indigenous, cultural, and cross-cultural psychology: A theoretical, conceptual, and epistemological analysis

This paper compares indigenous, cultural, and cross-cultural psychology by examining their theoretical, conceptual, and epistemological foundations. They have been influenced by the three research traditions in psychology: (1) universalist, (2) contextualist, and (3) integrationist approaches. The goal of the universalist approach is to test and verify universality of existing psychological theories. Cultural psychologists, in contrast, point out that presumed universals are actually Western impositions and not universals. They affirm the contextualist approach and argue that every culture possesses its own unique characteristics, and they should be understood from within the culture. Integrationists argue that search for universals should include the content and context of culture, and they reject absolute universalism and relativism. In cross-cultural psychology, two integrationist approaches can be identified: the derived etic approach (Berry, 1980) and the indigenous psychologies approach (Kim, Park, & Park, 1999). In the derived etic approach, researchers adapt and integrate existing theories to fit local knowledge. Indigenization as articulated by Sinha (1997) represents this approach. In the indigenous psychologies approach, the primary goal is to understand how people think, feel, and behave in a particular context. It advocates a bottom-up model-building paradigm that examines the generative capabilities of human beings. Detailed analysis of the indigenous psychologies approach is provided.     

Presentism and Difference: On the Inclusion of Indigenous Psychologies in the History of Psychology

In response to “Jagged 85’s” interference and Adrian Brock’s essay the first part of this contribution refers to psychological knowledge and practices outside the European and North American canon of academic psychology that tend to be lumped together under the term “indigenous”. A distinction between “textual”, “subaltern” and “synergetic” forms of indigenous psychologies is suggested. The second part highlights the agency of Indian academic psychologists and their attempts to “indigenize” academic psychology. The conclusion advocates the institutionalization of unified social science studies programmes.     

中文语境下的“心理”和“心理学”

“心”或“心理”等词语在汉语中有相当长的历史,对这些词语的理解反映了中国人关于“心理”的认识。中文的“心”往往不是指一种身体器官而是指人的思想、意念、情感、性情等,故“心理学”这三个汉字有极大的包容性。任何学科都摆脱不了社会文化的作用,中国心理学亦曾受到意识形态、科学主义和大众常识等方面的影响。近年中国学者对心理学自身的问题进行了反思。从某种意义上说,中国人对“心理”和“心理学”的理解或许有助于心理学的整合,并与其他国家的心理学一道发展出真正的人类心理学     

Identity and sociocultural change: Comparing young indigenous people in Chiapas who have different sociodemographic trajectories

One of the most commonly used distinctions in cross‐cultural studies is the one between individualism and collectivism. One of the criticisms levelled at this distinction is that it fails to incorporate the differences that may exist when comparing people from a rural context with little formal education to people from the same group who live in an urban context where formal education is the norm. Bearing in mind these sociodemographic factors, we have compared the self‐concepts among 104 young indigenous people in Chiapas (Mexico), having divided them into three groups: “rural‐traditional,” “rural–urban” and “urban.” These people's self‐concepts were analysed using a task that contrasts personal self‐concept with social self‐concept and a technique in which participants draw themselves along with the things and people they consider most important to them. The results reveal significant differences between the three groups. The personal categories are given a higher value in the “urban” group while the social categories score higher in the “rural‐traditional” group. Regarding the results of the indigenous self‐portraits, from the content analysis of the drawings, 16 categories emerged. These findings are discussed in the light of Greenfield's theory of social change and human development.     

Can Culture Influence Body‐Specific Associations Between Space and Valence?

People implicitly associate positive ideas with their dominant side of space and negative ideas with their non‐dominant side. Right‐handers tend to associate “good” with “right” and “bad” with “left,” but left‐handers associate “bad” with “right” and “good” with “left.” Whereas right‐handers' implicit associations align with idioms in language and culture that link “good” with “right,” left‐handers' implicit associations go against them. Can cultural conventions modulate the body‐specific association between valence and left‐right space? Here, we compared people from Spanish and Moroccan cultures, which differ in the strength of taboos against the use of the left hand, and therefore in their preference for the right. Results showed stronger explicit associations between space and valence in Moroccan participants than in Spaniards, but they did not show any increased tendency for right‐handed Moroccans to associate “good” with “right” implicitly. Despite differences in cultural conventions between Spaniards and Moroccans, we find no evidence for a cross‐cultural difference in the implicit association between space and valence, which appears to depend on patterns of bodily experience.     

Le modèle écoculturel: un cadre pour la psychologie culturelle comparative

The main goal of this article is to examine the epistemological foundations of the contemporary cross‐cultural psychology from a constructivist point of view. We argue for the necessity of heuristic paradigms like the eco‐cultural framework of John Berry. Such an approach can be considered as a systemic modelling of complex phenomena by a psychologist (e.g., the relations of “mind‐brain‐culture” as well as their development). At the individual level, we argue the necessity to surpass the classic distinction between competence and performance. Competences are differentiated here as “intuitive representations” (or elementary mental functions) and “reflective representations” (or superior mental functions). Intuitive and reflective representations remain at the origin of both behaviour and performance. Such systemic conception allows the theoretical possibility of a “relativist constructivism” that could be more suitable than the “absolutist constructivism” proposed by Jean Piaget.     

建立儒家人文主义的学术传统:由文化“复建”到文化“复兴”

本文回顾了作者跟随杨国枢教授推动本土心理学的学术历程,并依据自己的切身体会,提出本土心理学运动必须以科学哲学作为基础。作者身体力行,在最近二三十年间,深入学习科学哲学的理论,逐步建立本土心理学的相关理论。其最终目标,是打算以儒家文化作为基底,吸纳西方近代文明的菁华,“中学为体,西学为用”,摆脱西方学术的宰制,建立“儒家人文主义”的自主学术传统。作者认为,唯有大力发展本土社会科学,建立华人“自主的社会科学传统”,华人学术社群才有可能走出“学术自我殖民”的心态。     

Culture and career psychology: A social constructionist perspective

This paper reflects on the need to re-examine cultural and cross-cultural psychology with a view to re-invigorating them and placing them at the center of discourse in career psychology. One perspective that can be employed to achieve these goals is social constructionism in that it questions the centrality of post-positivism in cultural and cross-cultural career psychology and shifts the focus to people in relationships. Emphasis is placed on understanding relationships in culture and recognizing that cultures are neither static nor independent variables but central to and embedded in career psychology. Social constructionist perspectives on cross-cultural counseling in career psychology and the development of indigenous career psychologies are discussed.     

Three approaches to the psychology of culture: Where do they come from? Where can they go?

Cultural psychology, cross-cultural psychology, and indigenous psychology are three approaches to the psychology of culture. The author begins by comparing the three approaches – conceptually, methodologically; and historically. She concludes that each approach has contributed knowledge of the "deep structure" of culture to the field of psychology. This "deep structure" consists of the framework of individualism and collectivism; particular cultures are therefore surface forms of one or the other of these basic cultural frameworks. Rather than being universal, classical social and developmental psychology are seen as reflecting a particular indigenous psychology. For the future, a truly universal psychology must offer a theoretical framework that encompasses alternative indigenous psychologies.     

Dimensions of “uniquely” and “non‐uniquely” human emotions

Emotion scientists often distinguish those emotions that are encountered universally, even among animals ( “primary emotions”), from those experienced by human beings ( “secondary emotions”). No attempt, however, has ever been made to capture the lay conception about this distinction and to find the criteria on which the distinction is based. The first study presented in this paper was conducted in three countries involving four languages, so as to allow for cross‐cultural comparisons. Results showed a remarkable convergence. People from all samples not only differentiated between “uniquely human” and “non‐uniquely human” emotions on a continuum, but they did so on the same basis as the one used by emotion scientists to distinguish between “primary” and “secondary” emotions. Study 2 focused on the implicit use of such a distinction. When confronted with a human (animal) context, participants reacted faster to secondary (vs primary) emotions. The implications of the human uniqueness of some emotions within the social and interpersonal contexts are discussed.     

No Lake Wobegon in Beijing? The impact of culture on the perception of relative ranking

A prominent example in the literature on relative ranking is the “better‐than‐average” effect: that people have a general tendency to view themselves in a positive light and think they are above average. The current paper evaluates whether such biases are specific to culture. In Experiment 1, Americans exhibited a larger better‐than‐average effect than Chinese. In Experiment 2, the study was designed to understand what drives this cultural difference. Estimates of relative standing for Americans relied more on perceptions of their own ability compared to those for Chinese participants. Relatively structured questions (experimental manipulation of the question frame) facilitate Americans making better judgments but not Chinese, supporting the hypothesis that relative‐ranking estimates are influenced by the degree to which other (vs. self) information is used cross‐culturally.     

Counseling's Inescapable Moral Visions

In this article, philosophical hermeneutics is combined with interpretive social science perspectives to generate a framework for considering the influence of cultural values and assumptions on counseling theory and practice. The core of this framework is the claim that people necessarily live within moral visions that answer the questions: (a) what is a person? and (b) what should a person be or become? Culture provides answers to these questions not only through folk and indigenous psychologies but also by shaping psychological and counseling theories. Moral visions are generally unacknowledged because of the fact-value dualism and the ideals of neutrality that pervade Western culture. Consequently, moral visions, like individualism, operate as disguised ideology in counseling theory and practice.     

Thinking Outside the Disciplinary Box: a Reply to the Comments

This article is a reply to the comments on my target article, “Presentism and diversity in the history of psychology” (Brock Psychological Studies, 60, 2015a). The most controversial aspect of the article by far was my views on what it is appropriate to call, “psychology” and what it is not. Having established that psychology has its origins in Europe, I refer to the efforts of psychologists from outside the Western world to construct an “indigenous psychology”. I conclude by discussing the view of Staeuble (2006) that the disciplinary order of the social sciences is “Eurocentric” in that it reflects the assumptions of the culture in which it was produced. As long as psychologists outside the Western world continue to unquestioningly adopt a disciplinary order that reflects its cultural origins in the West, and even insist on projecting it backwards onto their own intellectual traditions, the process of indigenisation will be incomplete.     

Culture and institutional agency: difference in judgments of economic behavior and organizational responsibilities

The current research tested the concept of institutional agency (IA) and its implications for laypeople's attribution patterns related to economic behaviors and organizational responsibilities. The term “institutional agency” refers to a set of lay theories about whether or not an organization can have personhood and related mental properties, such as wishes, desires, intents, and responsibility. Through three cross‐cultural studies, we found that people do form certain beliefs about IA which are similar to the legal discourse of institutional responsibility. However, there are significant cultural differences in views of IA, and the concept is more mentally salient for Americans than for Chinese. In Study 1, we distinguished institutional from group agency by showing the cultural differences on attributions in the scenario with “individual vs. group agency” and the scenario with “individual vs. institutional agency.” In Study 2, we again demonstrated the stronger salience of IA for Americans than for Chinese by including the individual, group, and institutional agencies together in one scenario. In Study 3, we further demonstrated that the concept of IA is more salient for Americans by presenting three different agents in separate scenarios. The practical implications of these cultural differences for cross‐cultural understanding and the psychological effects of economic globalization are discussed.     

Interbehavioral Perspectives: On Act Psychologies and the Psychological Nouns

In a recent paper, Lee contrasted “act psychologies” with cognitive psychology, alleging that the former are incomplete in their coverage of what most people consider really psychological. By including the contextual interactionist approach of J. R. Kantor with B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism under the “act psychology” umbrella, Lee has shown that she is unfamiliar with the fact that Kantor, during his 60-odd years of active writing, covered virtually every aspect of psychology. She is particularly concerned about the neglect of those psychological nouns that are meaningful abstractions without being aware that contextual interactionism (interbehavioral psychology) uses the very terms which she mentions as long as they are used in reference to interactions and not to faculties or other psychic entities.