Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221112327
J. Berry, W. Lonner, D. Best
This special Issue of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology celebrates the 50th anniversary of the founding of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP) in 1972. This article seeks to provide a summary of the main influences that led to its founding, and the events and activities that followed. In this article, we search for the many relationships between cultural and behavioral phenomena, beginning around the turn of the 20th century, and continuing to the present. This review follows a chronological sequence and is organized according to the main events that led to the founding of IACCP.
{"title":"The Ascent of Cross-Cultural Psychology","authors":"J. Berry, W. Lonner, D. Best","doi":"10.1177/00220221221112327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221112327","url":null,"abstract":"This special Issue of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology celebrates the 50th anniversary of the founding of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP) in 1972. This article seeks to provide a summary of the main influences that led to its founding, and the events and activities that followed. In this article, we search for the many relationships between cultural and behavioral phenomena, beginning around the turn of the 20th century, and continuing to the present. This review follows a chronological sequence and is organized according to the main events that led to the founding of IACCP.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64914154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221111810
J. Tanaka-Matsumi
As the Special Issue of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology celebrates the 50th anniversary of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP), this article aims to summarize and track the development of counseling and psychotherapy in cultural contexts over the past half-century. When the edited volume, Counseling Across Cultures (CAC) first appeared nearly half a century ago, it sent an innovative message that culture matters in counseling and psychotherapy. The CAC editors produced six more updated editions in the succeeding years by 2016. The CAC authors examined the cultural context of accurate assessment, meaningful understanding of culture-relevant concepts, and appropriate interventions in each of the seven editions. They have surveyed universal and cultural aspects of counseling and psychotherapy according to such themes as emic and etic approaches to models of mental health, therapeutic relationships and techniques, assessment and interventions, and training needs against the IACCP’s ever-growing academic and professional activities. Research on the cultural adaptation of specific psychotherapies for specific clients should enhance access to culturally sensitive and evidence-based assessments and interventions. The need for training in multicultural awareness is expected to accelerate in the age of rapid globalization. This article affirms the contribution of the foundation-building approaches of CAC and the need for developing the interface between cross-cultural psychology and related clinical and counseling fields.
{"title":"Counseling Across Cultures: A Half-Century Assessment","authors":"J. Tanaka-Matsumi","doi":"10.1177/00220221221111810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221111810","url":null,"abstract":"As the Special Issue of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology celebrates the 50th anniversary of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP), this article aims to summarize and track the development of counseling and psychotherapy in cultural contexts over the past half-century. When the edited volume, Counseling Across Cultures (CAC) first appeared nearly half a century ago, it sent an innovative message that culture matters in counseling and psychotherapy. The CAC editors produced six more updated editions in the succeeding years by 2016. The CAC authors examined the cultural context of accurate assessment, meaningful understanding of culture-relevant concepts, and appropriate interventions in each of the seven editions. They have surveyed universal and cultural aspects of counseling and psychotherapy according to such themes as emic and etic approaches to models of mental health, therapeutic relationships and techniques, assessment and interventions, and training needs against the IACCP’s ever-growing academic and professional activities. Research on the cultural adaptation of specific psychotherapies for specific clients should enhance access to culturally sensitive and evidence-based assessments and interventions. The need for training in multicultural awareness is expected to accelerate in the age of rapid globalization. This article affirms the contribution of the foundation-building approaches of CAC and the need for developing the interface between cross-cultural psychology and related clinical and counseling fields.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46333481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221093811
Y. Poortinga, J. Fontaine
Principles of methodology in (cross-)cultural psychology are discussed and how these work out in practice. We propose that the frequently mentioned contrasts between context-specificity and universality of psychological functioning, and between qualitative and quantitative research traditions can be transcended by an empirical cycle in which both qualitative methods geared to exploration and quantitative methods geared to testing of hypotheses are acknowledged. We note issues in research due to non-random sampling, lack of psychometric equivalence of data, and nesting of individuals in populations. We argue that concerns about poor reproducibility in psychology cannot be ignored in cross-cultural psychology and make suggestions how research can be improved by treating this not as a threat but as an opportunity to expand cooperation.
{"title":"Principles and Practices of Methodology and Methods in Cross-Cultural Psychology","authors":"Y. Poortinga, J. Fontaine","doi":"10.1177/00220221221093811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221093811","url":null,"abstract":"Principles of methodology in (cross-)cultural psychology are discussed and how these work out in practice. We propose that the frequently mentioned contrasts between context-specificity and universality of psychological functioning, and between qualitative and quantitative research traditions can be transcended by an empirical cycle in which both qualitative methods geared to exploration and quantitative methods geared to testing of hypotheses are acknowledged. We note issues in research due to non-random sampling, lack of psychometric equivalence of data, and nesting of individuals in populations. We argue that concerns about poor reproducibility in psychology cannot be ignored in cross-cultural psychology and make suggestions how research can be improved by treating this not as a threat but as an opportunity to expand cooperation.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44699063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221114046
J. Altarriba, D. Basnight-Brown
Human behavior is often guided by the development and use of language as a means of communication and as a way to represent thoughts and knowledge. Notions of linguistic relativity and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis indicate that language plays a role in structuring the worldview and perceptions of individuals. The current work will explore how those perceptions are not only guided by language but are also moderated by culture and the beliefs, mores, and ideas that are sanctioned and regulated by a given cultural group. Papers, chapters, and books that have demonstrated the ways in which culture moderates behavior by way of the language that is used to express that culture will be of primary focus. Moreover, a developmental view of language learning will frame this approach in learning how language, culture, and thought have been examined and assessed as a way of describing how, together, they moderate human behavior. Is there truly evidence of linguistic relativity? Does language serve as the primary moderator of thought, or do cultural influences play a more pressing role in cognitive thought processes for a given group? Developments in theory, methods, and data that help explore these concepts through their publication in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology as well as other outlets will be presented and discussed as a framework that can be developed to generate future research questions, testing paradigms, and experimental approaches—both basic and applied.
{"title":"The Psychology of Communication: The Interplay Between Language and Culture Through Time","authors":"J. Altarriba, D. Basnight-Brown","doi":"10.1177/00220221221114046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221114046","url":null,"abstract":"Human behavior is often guided by the development and use of language as a means of communication and as a way to represent thoughts and knowledge. Notions of linguistic relativity and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis indicate that language plays a role in structuring the worldview and perceptions of individuals. The current work will explore how those perceptions are not only guided by language but are also moderated by culture and the beliefs, mores, and ideas that are sanctioned and regulated by a given cultural group. Papers, chapters, and books that have demonstrated the ways in which culture moderates behavior by way of the language that is used to express that culture will be of primary focus. Moreover, a developmental view of language learning will frame this approach in learning how language, culture, and thought have been examined and assessed as a way of describing how, together, they moderate human behavior. Is there truly evidence of linguistic relativity? Does language serve as the primary moderator of thought, or do cultural influences play a more pressing role in cognitive thought processes for a given group? Developments in theory, methods, and data that help explore these concepts through their publication in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology as well as other outlets will be presented and discussed as a framework that can be developed to generate future research questions, testing paradigms, and experimental approaches—both basic and applied.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49531143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221084041
Peter B. Smith, M. Bond
Over 5 days at the Nag’s Head Conference Center, USA in 1987, social and cross-cultural psychologists discussed what would be required if research relating to culture were to gain greater attention from psychology in general, and in particular from what was perceived at the time as its mainstream. The criteria for gaining greater credibility laid down by three leading social psychologists proved daunting in relation to the cross-cultural work presented at the meeting but subsequently inspired cross-culturalists to “raise their game.” In this paper, we describe these crucial challenges and how they have been addressed more recently by cross-cultural psychologists. We assess the extent to which studies focused on cultural differences are now thoughtfully represented in social, personality, and organizational psychology by briefly surveying the content of a single year’s issues of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of International Business Studies, and the Journal of Personality in relation to the concurrent content of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. We identify the perils of assimilation to psychology in general by diluting the concept of culture and by tyrannizing research with over-specified criteria of statistical rectitude. We also identify studies published in top-rated journals that have nonetheless advanced our field. We reiterate the need for defensible measures of cultural difference and methods for identifying and examining them as a basis for multi-level explanations of cultural effects and cultural change. We conclude by proposing a gold standard for assaying cross-cultural studies of psychological processes and outcomes.
{"title":"Four Decades of Challenges by Culture to Mainstream Psychology: Finding Ways Forward","authors":"Peter B. Smith, M. Bond","doi":"10.1177/00220221221084041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221084041","url":null,"abstract":"Over 5 days at the Nag’s Head Conference Center, USA in 1987, social and cross-cultural psychologists discussed what would be required if research relating to culture were to gain greater attention from psychology in general, and in particular from what was perceived at the time as its mainstream. The criteria for gaining greater credibility laid down by three leading social psychologists proved daunting in relation to the cross-cultural work presented at the meeting but subsequently inspired cross-culturalists to “raise their game.” In this paper, we describe these crucial challenges and how they have been addressed more recently by cross-cultural psychologists. We assess the extent to which studies focused on cultural differences are now thoughtfully represented in social, personality, and organizational psychology by briefly surveying the content of a single year’s issues of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of International Business Studies, and the Journal of Personality in relation to the concurrent content of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. We identify the perils of assimilation to psychology in general by diluting the concept of culture and by tyrannizing research with over-specified criteria of statistical rectitude. We also identify studies published in top-rated journals that have nonetheless advanced our field. We reiterate the need for defensible measures of cultural difference and methods for identifying and examining them as a basis for multi-level explanations of cultural effects and cultural change. We conclude by proposing a gold standard for assaying cross-cultural studies of psychological processes and outcomes.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44200020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221084236
D. Matsumoto, Matthew Wilson
Research on emotion and affective sciences is flourishing today like never before. The impetus for this surge is largely rooted in studies of emotion across cultures and coincides with the half century existence of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP). Beginning with studies initially documenting the universality of the expression and recognition of certain facial expressions of emotion in the 1970s, cross-cultural research was crucial in providing further evidence for the universality of antecedents, appraisals, subjective experiences, self-reported responses, and physiological reactions throughout the 1980s and 1990s. That same literature also demonstrated the existence of many cultural variations in these emotion domains, as well as in the concepts, language, attitudes, beliefs, and values about emotion. We review this literature with the goal of demonstrating some of the many meaningful and important contributions IACCP and cross-cultural studies have made to the field of emotion and affective sciences. This area of research has also been marred by considerable controversies for almost the entire period of study, and we describe those as well. We conclude with a presentation of current models of understanding the association between culture and emotion that integrate disparate cross-cultural findings and address controversies in the field, in the hope that such models can serve as a platform for renewed cross-cultural research in this area for the next half century and beyond.
{"title":"A Half-Century Assessment of the Study of Culture and Emotion","authors":"D. Matsumoto, Matthew Wilson","doi":"10.1177/00220221221084236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221084236","url":null,"abstract":"Research on emotion and affective sciences is flourishing today like never before. The impetus for this surge is largely rooted in studies of emotion across cultures and coincides with the half century existence of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP). Beginning with studies initially documenting the universality of the expression and recognition of certain facial expressions of emotion in the 1970s, cross-cultural research was crucial in providing further evidence for the universality of antecedents, appraisals, subjective experiences, self-reported responses, and physiological reactions throughout the 1980s and 1990s. That same literature also demonstrated the existence of many cultural variations in these emotion domains, as well as in the concepts, language, attitudes, beliefs, and values about emotion. We review this literature with the goal of demonstrating some of the many meaningful and important contributions IACCP and cross-cultural studies have made to the field of emotion and affective sciences. This area of research has also been marred by considerable controversies for almost the entire period of study, and we describe those as well. We conclude with a presentation of current models of understanding the association between culture and emotion that integrate disparate cross-cultural findings and address controversies in the field, in the hope that such models can serve as a platform for renewed cross-cultural research in this area for the next half century and beyond.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43927245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221093810
J. Berry
Cross-cultural psychology has employed the concept of the “field” in two ways. First, as articulated by Lewin, it is the larger context in which all individuals develop their behaviors and now express them; it is a conceptual space within which to situate human behavior. Second, it refers to the cultures and communities in which anthropologists have usually worked, making observations of daily life, and then describing the cultures of the people; it is a physical and symbolic space in which human activity takes place. These two meanings share common features: they both consider that all human behavior develops and is exhibited in contexts; and that these contexts need to be studied and described before human activity can be understood and interpreted. I argue that it is essential for cross-cultural psychology to use and study both meanings of the field concept if we are to make valid interpretations of the origins (roots) and the influences (routes) on behaviors that we observe and assess in our research and practice. Starting over 100 years ago, collaboration between anthropologists and psychologists established the field of cross-cultural psychology. This collaboration continued for many years, but has diminished in recent times. I argue for the necessity to return to the field in both senses in order for our field to advance. This paper examines these two meanings in the disciplines of anthropology and psychology, and presents some elaborations of them, using the ecocultural framework as a general guide, and an arc framework as a specific exposition of it. Examples of fieldwork in psychology and anthropology are presented to provide substance to these frameworks. The claim is made that our discipline has largely abandoned the concept of the field, and proposes a way to correct this error.
{"title":"The Forgotten Field: Contexts for Cross-Cultural Psychology","authors":"J. Berry","doi":"10.1177/00220221221093810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221093810","url":null,"abstract":"Cross-cultural psychology has employed the concept of the “field” in two ways. First, as articulated by Lewin, it is the larger context in which all individuals develop their behaviors and now express them; it is a conceptual space within which to situate human behavior. Second, it refers to the cultures and communities in which anthropologists have usually worked, making observations of daily life, and then describing the cultures of the people; it is a physical and symbolic space in which human activity takes place. These two meanings share common features: they both consider that all human behavior develops and is exhibited in contexts; and that these contexts need to be studied and described before human activity can be understood and interpreted. I argue that it is essential for cross-cultural psychology to use and study both meanings of the field concept if we are to make valid interpretations of the origins (roots) and the influences (routes) on behaviors that we observe and assess in our research and practice. Starting over 100 years ago, collaboration between anthropologists and psychologists established the field of cross-cultural psychology. This collaboration continued for many years, but has diminished in recent times. I argue for the necessity to return to the field in both senses in order for our field to advance. This paper examines these two meanings in the disciplines of anthropology and psychology, and presents some elaborations of them, using the ecocultural framework as a general guide, and an arc framework as a specific exposition of it. Examples of fieldwork in psychology and anthropology are presented to provide substance to these frameworks. The claim is made that our discipline has largely abandoned the concept of the field, and proposes a way to correct this error.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64914103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221107727
P. Denoux, Paraskevi Simou
The paper aims to show the international impact of 50 years of cross-cultural psychology on interdisciplinary intercultural studies and intercultural psychology, as developed in French-speaking countries. An original overview of the most prominent research carried out by Association pour la Recherche Interculturelle (ARIC, Association for Intercultural Research) and the research team Interculturation Psychique et Contacts Culturels (IPCC, Psychological Interculturation and Cultural Contacts) is suggested, while tending to cover the worldwide research related to the individual in intercultural situations. ARIC’s main topics are education, socio-political aspects and identity, individual, and cultures. This international association focuses on the articulation of research and practice to propose better policies to multicultural societies. In this perspective, it has carried out research about the immigration challenges considering the immigrants as well as the host societies. As it concerns intercultural psychology, it develops according to interculturation, that is, the psychological process that allows to overcome the cultural differences. It shapes intercultural personality and identity and the cognitive, affective and behavioral reactions of individuals or groups in any cultural contact. The various fields of application of both underline the undoubtable influence of cross-cultural psychology and the possibilities for further in-depth collaboration due to mutual contributions.
{"title":"Cross-Cultural Psychology à la française: An Overview of Interdisciplinary Intercultural Studies and Intercultural Psychology","authors":"P. Denoux, Paraskevi Simou","doi":"10.1177/00220221221107727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221107727","url":null,"abstract":"The paper aims to show the international impact of 50 years of cross-cultural psychology on interdisciplinary intercultural studies and intercultural psychology, as developed in French-speaking countries. An original overview of the most prominent research carried out by Association pour la Recherche Interculturelle (ARIC, Association for Intercultural Research) and the research team Interculturation Psychique et Contacts Culturels (IPCC, Psychological Interculturation and Cultural Contacts) is suggested, while tending to cover the worldwide research related to the individual in intercultural situations. ARIC’s main topics are education, socio-political aspects and identity, individual, and cultures. This international association focuses on the articulation of research and practice to propose better policies to multicultural societies. In this perspective, it has carried out research about the immigration challenges considering the immigrants as well as the host societies. As it concerns intercultural psychology, it develops according to interculturation, that is, the psychological process that allows to overcome the cultural differences. It shapes intercultural personality and identity and the cognitive, affective and behavioral reactions of individuals or groups in any cultural contact. The various fields of application of both underline the undoubtable influence of cross-cultural psychology and the possibilities for further in-depth collaboration due to mutual contributions.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49080246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221092409
P. Dasen
This paper reports my own perceptions of the history of research on culture and cognitive development, in the approximate period 1960 to 2000. I review in particular my own efforts to test Piaget’s theory cross-culturally, but also include other lines of research such as research inspired by Vygotsky and research on child rearing/socialization potentially linked to cognitive development. I briefly mention a research program in Bali, Indonesia, India, and Nepal on the geocentric spatial frame of reference that allowed us to disentangle a variety of eco-cultural and linguistic variables that determine the preference for this geocentric cognitive style. I also recall the “integrated framework” that I proposed in 2003 to combine the models proposed by several authors and which serves to integrate all the findings. The main conclusion is that cognitive processes are universal but that there are cultural differences in cognitive styles and pathways of development. I also discuss why the field has lost momentum, whether it is because all the questions have been answered or because new topics and research methods have evolved.
{"title":"Culture and Cognitive Development","authors":"P. Dasen","doi":"10.1177/00220221221092409","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221092409","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reports my own perceptions of the history of research on culture and cognitive development, in the approximate period 1960 to 2000. I review in particular my own efforts to test Piaget’s theory cross-culturally, but also include other lines of research such as research inspired by Vygotsky and research on child rearing/socialization potentially linked to cognitive development. I briefly mention a research program in Bali, Indonesia, India, and Nepal on the geocentric spatial frame of reference that allowed us to disentangle a variety of eco-cultural and linguistic variables that determine the preference for this geocentric cognitive style. I also recall the “integrated framework” that I proposed in 2003 to combine the models proposed by several authors and which serves to integrate all the findings. The main conclusion is that cognitive processes are universal but that there are cultural differences in cognitive styles and pathways of development. I also discuss why the field has lost momentum, whether it is because all the questions have been answered or because new topics and research methods have evolved.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45576147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-28DOI: 10.1177/00220221221115654
Samuel Farley, J. Dawson, T. Greenaway, Keelan Meade, Daría Hernández Ibar
National status has been found to influence how people are perceived in multinational teams. Team members from an international background are often perceived as less competent than those from the local context. Studies mainly focus on language differences to explain this phenomenon, but in this study, we offer a different theoretical explanation. We propose that national status can affect psychological safety and its development within teams, which in turn affects verbal behavior and competence ratings. To test this notion, we examine differences in psychological safety growth, verbal behavior and competence ratings among home country nationals based in the United Kingdom (UK) and international members of newly formed multinational teams. In a sample of 519 team members (101 teams), results showed that internationals, compared to home country nationals, have lower initial psychological safety, as well as slower development in psychological safety over time. Furthermore, the relationship between national status and competence ratings was partially mediated by psychological safety growth and verbal behavior. These results were fully replicated on a separate sample of 538 team members (90 teams) in a second study using an identical research design. However, exploratory analyses indicated that the pattern of findings were not consistent across team members from Africa, Asia, and Europe. The psychological safety of home nationals only started and grew more quickly than that of Asians, while only African and Asian team members spoke less and were rated as less competent. Together these results have implications for managers of newly formed multinational teams.
{"title":"Does International Status Affect Competence Ratings in Newly Formed Multinational Teams? The Role of Psychological Safety Growth and Verbal Behavior","authors":"Samuel Farley, J. Dawson, T. Greenaway, Keelan Meade, Daría Hernández Ibar","doi":"10.1177/00220221221115654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221115654","url":null,"abstract":"National status has been found to influence how people are perceived in multinational teams. Team members from an international background are often perceived as less competent than those from the local context. Studies mainly focus on language differences to explain this phenomenon, but in this study, we offer a different theoretical explanation. We propose that national status can affect psychological safety and its development within teams, which in turn affects verbal behavior and competence ratings. To test this notion, we examine differences in psychological safety growth, verbal behavior and competence ratings among home country nationals based in the United Kingdom (UK) and international members of newly formed multinational teams. In a sample of 519 team members (101 teams), results showed that internationals, compared to home country nationals, have lower initial psychological safety, as well as slower development in psychological safety over time. Furthermore, the relationship between national status and competence ratings was partially mediated by psychological safety growth and verbal behavior. These results were fully replicated on a separate sample of 538 team members (90 teams) in a second study using an identical research design. However, exploratory analyses indicated that the pattern of findings were not consistent across team members from Africa, Asia, and Europe. The psychological safety of home nationals only started and grew more quickly than that of Asians, while only African and Asian team members spoke less and were rated as less competent. Together these results have implications for managers of newly formed multinational teams.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64914168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：