四十年来文化对主流心理学的挑战:寻找前进的道路

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Pub Date : 2022-08-01 DOI:10.1177/00220221221084041
Peter B. Smith, M. Bond
{"title":"四十年来文化对主流心理学的挑战:寻找前进的道路","authors":"Peter B. Smith, M. Bond","doi":"10.1177/00220221221084041","DOIUrl":null,"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":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Four Decades of Challenges by Culture to Mainstream Psychology: Finding Ways Forward\",\"authors\":\"Peter B. Smith, M. Bond\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00220221221084041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221084041\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221084041","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

超过5 1987年,在美国Nag's Head会议中心的几天里,社会和跨文化心理学家讨论了如果与文化有关的研究要获得心理学的更多关注,特别是从当时被视为主流的心理学中获得更多关注,需要做些什么。三位著名的社会心理学家制定的获得更大可信度的标准与会议上提出的跨文化工作相比令人望而生畏,但随后激发了跨文化主义者“提高他们的游戏水平”。在本文中,我们描述了这些关键挑战,以及跨文化心理学家最近如何应对这些挑战。我们通过简要调查《个性与社会心理学杂志》、《国际商业研究杂志》、,《个性杂志》与《跨文化心理学杂志》的同期内容有关。我们通过淡化文化的概念,并用过度指定的统计正确性标准对研究进行专制化,来识别同化心理学的风险。我们还发现了发表在顶级期刊上的研究,尽管如此,这些研究还是推进了我们的领域。我们重申,有必要对文化差异采取合理的衡量标准,并确定和审查这些标准的方法,以此作为对文化影响和文化变化进行多层次解释的基础。最后,我们提出了一个分析心理过程和结果的跨文化研究的黄金标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Four Decades of Challenges by Culture to Mainstream Psychology: Finding Ways Forward
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology publishes papers that focus on the interrelationships between culture and psychological processes. Submitted manuscripts may report results from either cross-cultural comparative research or results from other types of research concerning the ways in which culture (and related concepts such as ethnicity) affect the thinking and behavior of individuals as well as how individual thought and behavior define and reflect aspects of culture. Review papers and innovative reformulations of cross-cultural theory will also be considered. Studies reporting data from within a single nation should focus on cross-cultural perspective. Empirical studies must be described in sufficient detail to be potentially replicable.
期刊最新文献
A Quantitative Systematic Review to Evaluate the Favorability of the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) on the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Clinical Utility for Clinicians, Patients, and Relatives Studying Culture, a Methodological Endeavor Exploring Professional and Carer Stakeholder Conceptualizations of Child and Adolescent Mental Health in Malawi Using a Contextual Co-Design Methodology: The Interplay of Pathology, the Supernatural, and a Pathway to Healing The Role of Perceived Forms of Discrimination Within the Psychological Acculturation Process of First-Generation Immigrants: A Scoping Review Who Is Your Biggest Critic? Cultural Variation in Moral Judgments of the Self and Others
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1