A Review on the Major Theoretical models of Cross—cultural Psychology

卢鸿进

Abstract：The rising of cross-cultural psychology provides good theoretical explanations for learners and researchers to learn and study the psychological similarities and differences of different cultures. This paper makes a general introduce of the major theories and models of cross-cultural psychology， and then makes some tentative critiques on the limitations of these models.

Key words：cross-cultural psychology； individualism； collectivism； Hofstede； Holistic； analytic

中图分类号：H319 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1672-1578（2015）11-0001-02

1 What is cross-cultural psychology

According to the definition presented in Segall， Dasen， Berry & Poortinga（1990）， cross-cultural psychology is “the scientific study of human behavior and its transmission， taking into account the ways in which behaviors are shaped and influenced by social and cultural forces”. This definition directs research towards the goal of studying the diversity of human behavior with regard to the cultural context in which it occurs. Most of the previous definitions also support the notion of cross-cultural psychology as “systematic comparison of psychological variables under different cultural conditions” （Eckensberger， 1972）

Cross-cultural psychology generally operationalizes culture as an antecedent variable that lies outside of and apart from the individual， cultural psychology sees culture as inside the individual （Price-Willeam， 1999； Shweder， 2001），as a way of knowing and construing the world and other people （Bruner， 1990）. Culture is defined by shared knowledge and meaning that is derived through processes of interaction and communication （Boesch， 1991；Cole， 1996； Eckensberger， 1990）

2 Major theories and models of cultural psychology

2.1 Individualism vs. collectivism

Triandis and his colleagues （Triandis， 1989，1994， 1995， 1998） distinguish groups on the basis of individualist and collectivist values and distinguish individuals on the basis of two personality dimensions， idiocentrism and allocentrism， that correspond to the cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism respectively. Idiocentrics tend to place particular value on independence， competition， and superiority， whereas allocentrics tend to place particular importance on interdependence， in-group harmony， and solidarity and can be characterized by a subordination of personal goals to those of their in-group. These multidimensional “cultural syndromes” are seen in “shared attitudes， beliefs， norms， role and self definitions， and values of members of each culture organized around a theme”（Triandis et al.，1998）. To assess these syndromes， Triandis developed questionnaires （e.g. the Individualism-Collectivism Scale， Singelis et al.， 1995） that indicate the focus of individualism-collectivism theories on locating shared beliefs within groups and differences in beliefs between groups （Cooper & Denner， 1998）.

2.2 Independence vs. interdependence

Markus and Kitayama （1991， 1996） put forward a model of independence-interdependence. They believe that “core cultural ideas” can be seen in“key ideological and philosophical texts and institutions at the collective level.” These foster “cultural shaping of psychological reality” thereby affecting “customs， norms， practices and institutions”. It is further argued that American culture stresses the core cultural idea of independence by valuing attending to oneself and discovering and expressing individual qualities “while neither assuming nor valuing overt connectedness”.These values are reflected in educational and legal systems， employment and care-taking practices， and individual cognition，emotion，and motivation. According to the independent viewpoint， individuals choose their goals， make plans， control and master or change their social world. In contrast， an approach framing the self as interdependent sees the individual at work in adjusting to and attuning with the standards， expectations， or duties that define ones encompassing relationships and thus the person.

2.3 Hofstedes cultural dimensions theory

Based on data from 116.000 IBM employees from more than 50 countries，（Hofstede，1989；1991） yielded four dimensions of cultural variation in values： Power distance （willingness to tolerate differences in power and authority）， individualism （versus collectivism； orientation toward individual or group）， masculinity （versus femininity； the former stressing achievement and material success， the latter， harmony and caring）， and uncertainty avoidance （willingness to tolerate ambiguity）. Power distance refers to the extent that members of a culture accept inequality and to their perception of distance between those with power and those with little power. Individualism reflects the extent that people emphasize personal or group goals. The essence of collectivism is giving preference to in-group over individual goals. Masculinity is found in societies that differentiate very strongly by sex. Uncertainty avoidance is reflected in an emphasis on ritual behavior， rules and stable employment. It is found in cultures that report high levels of stress， which are more ideological and less pragmatic. Independent research in Hong Kong led Hofstede to add a fifth dimension， long-term orientation， to cover aspects of values not discussed in the original paradigm. In the 2010 edition of Cultures and Organizations： Software of the Mind Hofstede added a sixth dimension， indulgence versus self-restraint， as a result of co-author Michael Minkovs analysis of data from the World Values Survey. Further research has refined some of the original dimensions， and introduced the difference between country-level and individual-level data in analysis.

Hofstede has gathered a large amount of data and has drawn implications from these dimensions concerning managerial practice. Although there have been many critiques of Hofstedes work （see Smith， Dugan & Trompenaars， 1996； Sondergaard， 1994）， there is general agreement that the dimensions he proposed hold. For example， in reviewing 61 replications of Hofstedes research， Sondergaard （1994） concluded that the cultural differences predicted by Hofstede were generally confirmed.

2.4 Holistic vs. analytic perception

Richard E.Nisbett and his colleagues found that perceptual processes are influenced by culture. Westerners tend to engage in context-independent and analytic perceptual processes by focusing on a salient object independently of its context， whereas Asians tend to engage in context- dependent and holistic perceptual processes by attending to the relationship between the object and the context in which the object is located.

For example，Westerners tend to attribute events to causes internal to the object or person whereas Asians are more likely than Westerners to attribute causality to the context or situation. Westerners are more likely to use categorization and rules in reasoning about everyday life events whereas East Asians are more likely to emphasize relationships and similarities. It is our contention that there are analogous cultural differences in perceptual processes. People in Western cultures tend to engage in context-independent and analytic perceptual processes by focusing on a salient object （or person） independently from the context in which it is embedded. On the other hand， people in East Asian cultures tend to engage in context-dependent and holistic perceptual processes by attending to the relationship between the object and the context in which the object is located.

3 Critiques on these models

With the considerable social economic development and international exchange， great change has taken place since the new century， the paradigm of cultural dichotomy meets challenges.

Firstly， since cross-cultural psychology as an academic discipline was developed largely in North America， it entails a notion of ethnocentrism in methodology and theory. Ethnocentrism， a term coined by Summer （1906）， means that there exists a strong tendency to use ones own groups standard as the standard when viewing other groups. As Azuma （1984） notes， “When a psychologist looks at a non-Western culture through Western glasses， he may fail to notice important aspects of the non-Western culture since the scheme for recognizing them are not provided by his culture.” So the fact that the vast majority of studies use WEIRD （Western， educated， industrialized， rich， and democratic societies）participants presents a challenge to the understanding of human psychology and behavior. A 2008 survey of the top psychology journals found that 96% of subjects were from Western industrialized countries-which house just 12% of the worlds population（Dan Jones， 2010）. Hence， as anthropologist Joseph Henrich and psychologists Steven Heine and Ara Norenzayan （2010） argued in their paper published on Nature that WEIRDos werent representative of humans as a whole and that psychologists routinely use them to make broad， and quite likely false， claims about what drives human behavior. Researchers should also try to build links to diverse subject pools， perhaps drawing on contacts made by economists and public-health researchers in non-WEIRD societies.

Secondly， global measures of the individualist-collectivist， independence-interdependence， holistic versus analytic are too general that do not take into account the situational specificity of norms and values， may be misleading， and may be of limited utility in predicting cultural differences in behavior. Conway， et al. （2001） therefore adopt an interactionist approach taking into account cultural， situational and personality factors. Thus， it may be more fruitful to begin by conceptualizing the specific cognitions and motives that are likely to underlie the behavior one wishes to investigate， and in a second step determine the extent to which cultural differences in these factors account for the behavioral decisions that are typically observed.

Thirdly， these models dont view cultures as dynamic open systems. Some psychologists became concerned that constructs accepted as universal were not as invariant as previously assumed， especially since many attempts to replicate notable experiments in other cultures had varying success. Psychologists Goh and Kuczynski （2009） researched ways that Chinese parents are becoming more child-centered， and children are consequently becoming more demanding and assertive. They emphasize the one-child policy that led parents to spoil their single child， in contrast to having to spread their largesse among several children as in the past. “Children are few in number in contrast to the larger families of previous generations-allowing the child to have one-on-one personal relationships with caregivers. Each adult caregiver has an emotional stake with the child” （Goh & Kuczynski， 2009）. The research indicates that cultural psychology is a dynamic open system.

References：

[1] Cecilia Wainryb. The Study of Diversity in Human

Development： Culture， Urgencies， and Perils. Human Development， 2004，47：131-137.

[2] Dan Jones. A WEIRD View of Human Nature Skews Psychologists' Studies. Science，2010， 328：1627.

[3] Miriam Spering.Current issues in cross-cultural psychology： Research topics， applications， and perspectives. University of Heidelberg， Germany，2001.

[4] Joseph Henrich， Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature， 2010，466：29.

[5] Li Jiajun. A Psycholexical Study of the Chinese Values Structure and comparison With Schwalts Cross-cultural Values theory. Shanghai International Studies University，2013.