Cross-Cultural Considerations in Psychology

"Cross-cultural psychology is the study: of similarities and differences in individual psychological functioning in various cultural and ethnological groups; of ongoing changes in variables reflecting such functioning; and of the relationships of psychological variables with coloratura, ecological and biological variables" (Berry et al, 2012). Defining Cross-cultural Psychology Berry et al (2012) define their topic using the English language, which of itself contains culturally-bound concepts.Apart from this, their definition is both general ND specific enough to define a study, especially when that study is part of Western academia. However, by defining the cultural phenomena that may lead to 'ongoing changes' as variables, Berry et al (2012) are using the language of Western science.

Psychology is only a fledgling 'science'; previously it was more the field of philosophy and religion, seeking to define existential phenomena that are, by their very nature, indefinable. It is both understandable and disappointing to have to reduce phenomena of the human existence to the language of current science.Understandable because the trend in Western academia is for the scientifically 'provable'; and because a study needs-must contain itself within the language of the institution: here by compound sentences and prepositional phrases. If one were to actively use that same grammar of the definition, and remove all the prepositional phrases (beginning in, of, with, etc), the definition becomes something like this: ". The study ..

. Reflecting such functioning... And..

. " Therein lies the disappointment: A definition that has no action, and no direct object for the action.However, to define the pursuit of cross-cultural psychology with meeting like this: 'Cross-cultural psychology explores global human-news' is neither specific nor comprehensive, and while is commits grammatical sins it also perhaps goes further toward explaining the elusiveness of such a pursuit. Thankfully, experts in the field are able to go further.

In the 2014 American Psychological Association (PAP) handbook of multicultural psychology, Fauvism, Pig, Bags, and Wolf (2014) redefine even psychology (in their chapter on Religion and Spirituality), as being from the Latin root psyche, meaning soul.Rather than shying away from the existential questions they instead emphasis them, to allow for the importance of religion and spirituality in the multicultural psychology setting. They liken religion to politics in its ability to Polaris according to value differences and emotional attachments, but warn that by ignoring religion and/or spirituality, a pursuit of an effective cross- cultural psychology is lacking (Fauvism, Pig, Bags, & Wolf, 2014).Similarly, in the same handbook, David, Kaki, and Group (2014) mourn the limitations of current texts that attempt a worldview that is more multicultural, suggesting that they still all short. Instead, along with authors from the same PAP handbook of multicultural psychology; Rosa, Gonzales, Knight, and Barras (2014), they propose a continued pursuit toward a community psychology, citing the gradual disappearance of the dichotomous situation of minority groups vs.

. European 'norm', and the emergence of a non-monogamous, orally-levers culture.I Norte, Wendell a tattletale sun as Berry et al (2012) pragmatically lists what that study does is realistically limited, there is no harm in also reaching for an ideal; one that is less defined by the language of he culture that does the defining, and more focused on a global goal of human understanding. Indigenous Culture In cross cultural psychology there are a number of constructs that specify indigenous culture as being important, not only in theory, but also in research and practice.The first of these is the construct of personality; there are some personality traits and characteristics that are found only in specific indigenous cultures. The second is emotion, a psychological construct that has been researched widely based on facial expression analysis.

However, it is only recently that research has attempted to fine the emotion within the cultural milieu, rather than through the Western psychology lens that defines all things according to their own 'norms' where things that differ fall 'outside' the normal.For example, the emotion fagged, is described by the alfalfa people (an indigenous culture in the Micronesian atoll) as being a combination of compassion, love, and sadness (Lutz, 1988); it does not have an equivalent in Western theory because of its mimic application as a socially engaged emotion, whereas it is more likely to be a privately felt emotion in Western culture (Mammoths & Juan, 2004). More importantly, however, is that the 'importance' of acknowledging indigenous culture does not become a list of token 'points to remember'.Indigenous culture offers a set of ideals that encourages an assessment of the human psyche from a viewpoint outside the Western norm. As an example, Conspicuously, Harper, and Edge (2012) describe the current pursuit of qualitative research as having a focus on community participation; which also takes into account the indigenous narratives.

They also warn that the very term 'research' is linked to the European global movements of imperialism and colonialism, citing Smith who alls research the "dirtiest word in the indigenous vocabulary' (Smith, 1999, as cited in Console Willow et al. 2012). This pursuit of a study of the human psyche that acknowledges its indigenous origins comes closer to home with a recent Minimum Standards document from the Australian Psychological Society. It establishes a United Nations' Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in forensic practice. This is a situation where the overrepresented of indigenous people in the correctional system in Australia is paradigmatic, given the underrepresented of strict trauma experienced by the indigenous people (Sillies, 2013).

The APS document describes the difference in even the colonization practices in early Australian history, where the indigenous peoples were not even permitted to set up their own 'native courts' to manage their own legal issues, as was the practice in other British colonies. Due to the recent loss of the Americas and a fear of dwindling land resource, British colonization used military enforcement to govern, and Australian indigenous peoples by their very nature were 'unlawful' (Sillies, 2013).With these things in mind, it seems that it is not only advisable to include indigenous culture in cross-cultural psychology, but also extremely vital to the ongoing theory, research, and practice of psychology in general. Unilateralism or Relatively? At first glance, relativism and universalism are the two sides of the same coin: the aspects of a culture that are specific (and therefore relevant) to it, and the aspects of a culture that are the same as all other cultures (and therefore universal). However, this is an overly simplistic and impractical viewpoint.The relative specifics of each ultra group - whether it is an indigenous and ancient culture, or a new metro- suburban ingrown - are established because of a need for survival, and optimum adaptation to the environment (Mammoths & Juan, 2004).

The degree to which relativism is an important factor in cross-cultural psychology is gravely dependent on the pursuit of the practitioner, whether they are in clinical psychology practice, research, or philosophy. Past authors defined their cultural forays by how relatively similar or different the ingrown customs and constructs were to the Western- European psychology.Specifically, many made empirical comparisons to childhood developmental theory, likening indigenous cultures' achievements to stages, employing collective terms such as 'pre-modern', or even 'primitives' and 'savages'; referring to cultural groups as having lower intelligence (Pigged, in Sisterhoods, 2012). Religion, from this perspective, is seen as a childlike pursuit dependent on mythical thinking, whereas the more 'advanced' thinking of atheism is evidence of higher forms of cognition and the establishment of Piglet's formal operations'; a fully modern society (Sisterhoods, 2012).If this is the basis for a relativist focus in cross-cultural psychology, then it is at cross-purposes with the underlying philosophies of universalism, which become greatly valuable in the face of global human rights and humanitarian aid (McFarland, Webb, & Brown, 2012). In empirical research, a new measure of Identification with All Humanity (IOWA, McFarland et al.

, 2012) revealed that the degree to which people see themselves as members of a global community affects not only an individual's positive sense of self, but also the degree to which they will contribute to global knowledge, charitable relief, and a retention of human rights.This is perhaps an idealist perspective, but one that is increasingly relevant as the discipline of psychology becomes more globally mobile - especially in circumstances of trauma-driven need for mental health aid. Toothbrush, Bentley, Madam, and Jones (2012) describe a nested social Justice system, 'rediscovered' in the global application of mental health aid, that recognizes the universalism principals that apply to all human social groups regardless of cultural specifics: a focus on respect for the dignity and rights of all peoples.