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.     

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.     

The psychology of practice and the practice of the three psychologies

The keynote speakers at the 2nd Asian Association for Social Psychology Meetings were asked to clarify the relationship among the three scholarly fields known as cultural psychology, indigenous psychology and cross‐cultural psychology. Are they three names for the same thing? If not are they complementary or antagonistic enterprises? Does one approach subsume the other(s) or make the other(s) possible? What follows is my own general view of the “three psychologies” issue. I suggest that cultural psychology and indigenous psychology are kindred approaches, which differ in significant ways from cross‐cultural psychology. A distinction is drawn between the study of “mentalities” (the proper unit of analysis for cultural and indigenous psychology) and the study of “mind” (a non‐cultural phenomenon). Cultural psychology is a type of interpretive analysis of social practice which asks, “what are the `goals, values and pictures of the world' with reference to which this behavior might be seen as rational?” The essay describes the assumption of rationality and the place of cultural critique in interpretive analysis. Is there any significant difference at all between cultural psychology and indigenous psychology? One aim of cultural psychology (“globalizing the local”) is premised on the view that “indigenous psychologies” may have relevance outside their points of origin. How open is the indigenous psychology movement to the idea that (e.g.) a psychology with a “Chinese soul” might illuminate the psychological functioning of members of non‐Chinese populations?     

Integrating cross-cultural psychology research methods into ethnic minority psychology

Multicultural psychology has 2 related but often disconnected streams, namely cross-cultural psychology and racial and ethnic minority psychology (Hall & Maramba, 2001). We propose that advances in both fields will be facilitated if there is greater cross-fertilization, especially in methodological approaches given that proponents in both fields are interested in studying and understanding the role and impact of culture on human behavior. To facilitate this cross-fertilization, we present 3 methodological approaches that would be of value in racial and ethnic minority psychology. First, we present an overview of the importance of and the approaches to evaluating and establishing measurement equivalence. Second, we discuss recent advances in the understanding of conceptual equivalence in light of indigenous approaches, cultural manipulation, and multilevel analysis. Third, we present a combined etic-emic approach to cross-cultural personality research as illustrated by the Cross-Cultural Personality Assessment Inventory developed by Fanny Cheung and her colleagues.     

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.     

IMPOSED ETICS—EMICS—DERIVED ETICS: THE OPERATIONALIZATION OF A COMPELLING IDEA

There is a tension between two research traditions in cross-cultural psychology: working intensively within a single culture in order to understand indigenous psychological phenomena and how they are related to cultural context; and working comparatively across cultures in order to understand broad patterns of relationships between behavioural and cultural variables. This tension can be resolved, and the two approaches integrated, by the adoption of the emic and etic concepts of Pike, and by the elaboration of a set of concrete research steps rooted in these concepts. This paper outlines a conceptual and operational framework for the pursuit of both the indigenous and comparative goals, using examples from research on intelligence and attitudes.     

多元文化论与跨文化心理学的发展

多元文化论强调文化因素对心理学研究的重要性。它主张文化的多元性和平等性,反对跨文化心理学研究中的“文化帝国主义”倾向。在多元文化论的影响下,跨文化心理学开始摆脱“欧美中心主义”偏见,出现了普遍性研究策略和特殊性研究策略相结合、跨文化心理学与文化心理学、本土心理学相结合的趋向。     

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.     

Critique of the methodology of empirical research on individual modernity in Taiwan

Yang's 1974 to 1991 research on individual modernity and traditionalism in Taiwan is examined and the methodology for developing measurement instruments in this program critiqued. It is proposed that the proper strategy for research on indigenous psychology is to analyze a culture at the conceptual level with the symbolic approach, and then conduct empirical research on 'lifeworlds' using activity theory. Yang's research on individual modernity and traditionalism uses an inductive empirical approach without the theoretical grounding of conceptual analyses. Based on the philosophy of constructive realism, two types of knowledge (the scientific 'microworld' and the 'experienced lifeworld') are differentiated in order to explicate the significance of the discontinuity hypothesis of modernity for non-Western countries and to critique Yang's methodology for measuring individual modernity and traditionalism. It is proposed that the research strategy of cultural psychology be used in future study. This replacement would usher in the indigenous psychology approach as is evident in Yang's (1999, Yang, 2000) later works.     

From Emic to Etic: Exporting Indigenous Constructs

The study of culture differs by methodology. This article distinguishes etic (global) and emic (focal) approaches to cross-cultural research, and uses empirical studies in personality and social psychology as examples to illustrate the pros and cons of these two approaches and examine their relationships. Then, the article reviews origins and trends of research on several culturally derived constructs, including face, harmony, filial piety, and modesty. The import and export processes of pan-cultural and indigenous constructs reveal that generalization and indigenization are interrelated, complementary. It is suggested that cultural similarities and differences be better conceptualized as malleable and dynamic, and that etic and emic approaches can be integrated to form a unified system, balancing universality and distinctiveness.     

Dialectics between cultural and cross-cultural psychology

The attributes of indigenous, cultural, and cross-cultural psychology are described. Dimensions that contrast these three approaches are examined. They include emphases on emics, etics, or both, context or content of communications, culture inside or outside the person, culture dynamic or static, studying real or artificial situations, meaning is the focus of the research or a barrier to the research, and differences in methodology. The advantages and disadvantages of the three approaches are then examined, and it is concluded that all three approaches should be used in a coordinated fashion and findings common across the three approaches should be emphasized.     

Integrated analysis of indigenous psychologies: Comments and extensions of ideas presented by Shams, Jackson, Hwang and Kashima

The purpose of the present paper is to provide an integrated analysis of indigenous psychologies and to outline the epistemological foundation of indigenous psychologies. In the first part of this paper, the authors provide commentary of the four articles in this Special Issue. In the second section, the epistemological foundation of general psychology is reviewed. General psychology has adopted positivism in search of abstract and universal laws of human behavior and eliminated the subjective aspects of human functioning (i.e. agency, meaning, intention and goals) and the influence of context and culture. In the third section, the authors introduce the transactional model of science. In this approach, human beings are viewed as agents of their own action and are motivated to control and manage their environment. In the fourth section, indigenous psychologies and culture are defined. Cultural differences exist due to the diverse goals that cultures pursue, the methods people use to attain the goals, and the differential use of natural and human resources. In the fifth section, a review of empirical studies focusing on academic achievement is provided to highlight the scientific merits of indigenous psychologies. In the final section, the authors distinguish between the speculative analyses of indigenous concepts from systematic indigenous analyses. Indigenous psychologies represent a scientific paradigm in which the goal is to create a more rigorous, systematic and universal science that can be theoretically and empirically verified.     

Cross-cultural psychology: A symbiosis of cultural and comparative approaches

Culture–behaviour relationships can be understood in relation to many dimensions. It is argued that the cultural, indigenous and comparative traditions of research are mutually compatible, and indeed permit a symbiotic approach. This symbiosis produces a generic field, that of cross-cultural psychology, into which the three traditions can be incorporated, and permits the pursuit of a universal psychology.     

论心理学发展的困境与出路

近年来西方心理学家对心理学发展取向提出强烈批评。综合各家所论,心理学以往发展的困境乃是由于：(1)自哲学心理学到科学心理学对人性解释的理论始终纷歧,以致无法形成常规科学条件;(2)科学心理学自始即标榜自然科学而缺独立意识;(3)强调科学方法,忽视人性特质而陷入削足适履困境。因此,今后国内心理学的发展势不能再全盘西化,而应在人性特质与本土文化基础上吸取西方心理学精义,针对国人心理特质研究发展出属於自己的理论与应用心理学。本文最后提出的四会能力教学构想,希望对本土文化取向应用心理学的研究发挥一点抛砖引玉作用。     

Domination et impérialisme en psychologie

We offer some arguments in support of the idea that the only goal the teaching and research system of the United States can serve is that of the global system to which it belongs, namely, domination. We show how, within the last few decades, French research in psychology - its issues, its institutions, its practices, its ethics - has undergone a process of Americanization that has turned it into a mainstream Western (and basically American) psychology. We point out some research trends that have contested this mainstream psychology, either because it appears too male chauvinist or liberal (opposition psychologies) or because it is grounded in the individualist and liberalist postulates of Western cultures (indigenous psychologies). Unfortunately, because dominant epistemology is governed by a principle of continuity, these contesting trends have not increased our scientific requirements; on the contrary, they have often led to anti-scientific approaches. It is still the task of psychology to break away from kwoledges and values of common sense.     

Indigenous Psychologies: The Meaning of the Concept and its Assessment: Introduction

La signification des concepts de psychologie indigoène et d'indigoénisation, les processus par lesquels ils se réalisent, est exploré dans les quatres premiers articles de ce numéro spécial. Les concepts sont examinés tout d' abord à partir des perspectives plus larges de la psychologie sociale des sciences (Adair) et la psychologie interculturelle (Poortinga), ainsi que dans deux applications concrètes des approches de psychologie indignée au Mexique (Díaz-Loving) et en Corée (Kim, Park, et Park). Dans la seconde partie, trois articles rendent compte des recherches empiriques évaluant l'ampleur du développement indignée en Turquie, ex-URSS, au Venezuela, et Porto-Rico. Cette introduction au numéro spécial résume quelques uns des points communs et des différences dans les contributions.
The meaning of the concepts of indigenous psychologies and of indigenisation, the process by which they are achieved, are explored within the first four articles of this special issue. The concepts are examined initially in the abstract from the broader perspectives of the social psychology of science (Adair) and cross-cultural psychology (Poortinga), and in two concrete applications of indigenous psychology approaches in Mexico (Díaz-Loving) and Korea (Kim, Park, & Park). In the second part of this special issue, three articles report on empirical research assessing the extent of indigenous development that has occurred in Turkey, the former USSR, Venezuela, and Puerto Rico. This introduction summarises some of the commonalities and differences among the contributions.     

Cross-cultural psychology: Some accomplishments and challenges

The development of cross-cultural psychology over the past 40 years is briefly reviewed. Cross-cultural psychologists have focused on differences between populations, explanations based on individualism-collectivism and reduction of explanations to the individual-level of analysis. Cultural variations have been incompletely sampled, with an excessive focus on North America and East Asia. However, the cross-cultural approach is compatible with the perspective of cultural psychologists because in both traditions there has been a focus both on mechanisms of cultural stability and of cultural change. Promising new developments are identified, including classifications of a broader range of cultures based on communication behaviors, contrasting ways of satisfying identity motives in individualistic and collectivist cultures, and the use of experimental cultural primes for theory testing within bicultural populations.     

Culture and personality: toward an integrated cultural trait psychology

Two theoretical perspectives currently dominate research on culture and personality, the cross-cultural trait psychology approach, in which the trait concept is central, and the cultural psychology approach, in which the trait concept is questioned. Here I review theory and research from both perspectives and propose that the tenets of cultural psychology, at least in their more moderate forms, can be synthesized with the trait psychology approach, resulting in an integrated cultural trait psychology perspective.     

The Propositional vs. Hermeneutic Models of Cross-Cultural Understanding

Abstract

What the authors attempts to address in this paper is a Kantian question: not whether, but how is cross-cultural understanding possible? And specifically, what is a more effective approach for cross-cultural understanding? The answer lies in an analysis of two different models of cross-cultural understanding, that is, propositional and hermeneutic understanding. To begin with, the authors presents a linguistic interpretation of culture, i.e., a culture as a linguistically formulated and transmitted symbolic system with its conceptual core as a scheme of basic cultural presuppositions. Such a symbolic system is referred to as a cultural language. After exploring the essential role of cultural presuppositions in cross-cultural understanding, the authors discusses the traditional model of cross-cultural understanding, namely, the propositional model. Through critically examining the two popular versions of the propositional model, i.e., the projective approach and the adoptive approach to cross-cultural understanding, it is found that cross-cultural propositional understanding is doomed to failure. To move us beyond the absolutism-relativism trap embedded within propositional understanding, the authors first introduces and discusses Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutic understanding, and then applies Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutic model of understanding to cross-cultural understanding. It is finally concluded that cross-cultural understanding is essentially hermeneutic – including the case of cultural learning, not propositional. Therefore, cross-cultural understanding is hermeneutically possible.     

Academic careers in Asia: A cross-cultural analysis

Using Berry’s (1980) acculturation model as our theoretical foundation, we provide a conceptual framework for the cross-cultural analysis of academic careers in Asia in contrast to the United States. Consistent with Berry’s model, we propose a classification of three approaches to research (Adopted Western, Asian, and Integrationist) that can be selected by Asian academics. An individual’s acculturation level or cultural identity is then proposed as the key factor in influencing his or her decision of which research approach is selected. Next, we examine the cultural contextual factors in the academic environment in Asia that interacts with the three approaches to research and conclude that the Integrationist approach, while quite challenging, is likely to be the most productive in the long run. Finally, we discuss some unanswered questions raised by our analysis.