No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
توجهات في علم النفس لدراسة الأسس الثقافية للمعرفة والسلوك- مقاربة لدراسة هذه الأسس في السياق العربي
Abstract
تهدف ورقة البحث هذه إلى ما يلي: ( أ) تسليط الضوء على الأسس الثقافية للسلوك والتفكير التي بيّنتها البحوث الحديثة في مجال علم النفس والثقافة، (ب) مقارنة تقييمية للتوجهات الرئيسية الثلاثة التي أفرزها البحث والتنظير في هذا المجال والمتمثّلة بعلم النفس عبر الثقافي ، وعلم النفس الثقافي ، وعلم النفس المحلي (المؤصّل ثقافياً) (indigenous psychology) ؛ (ج) استطلاع واقع البحث النفسي العربي في علاقته بالثقافة العربية؛ و(د) مراجعة نماذج من البحوث النفسية الثقافية التي تضمنت عينات عربية في مجالات محورية من ميدان الثقافة وعلم النفس. المنهجية : تم الاعتمادعلى مراجعة للبحوث النظرية والإمبريقية التي جرت في مجال علم نفس الثقافة، والمتصلة بالأهداف السابقة. النتائج: تقدّم التوجهات الثلاثة إسهاماتها الخاصة، كما تقدم إسهامات مشتركة في الدراسة النفسية للثقافة، وتقدم البحوث فيها أدلة متينة على أن المعرفة والسلوك يتأثران تأثراً بالغاً بالثقافة؛ ويظهر إجماع بين فئة من ذوي الخبرة الأكاديمية، إضافة إلى بعض الأدلة الإمبريقية، على افتقار البحث العربي في علم النفس إلى الصلة المنشودة بالثقافة العربية؛ وتدل الدراسات الثقافية التي تمت مراجعتها على وجود عناصر سيكولوجية تجمع الثقافة العربية بكل من الثقافتين الشرق آسيوية والغربية، في آن . الخلاصة : أدّى التركيز على دور الثقافة في تشكّل الإنسان سيكولوجياً إلى انعطافة في البحث والتنظير النفسيين على صعيد عالمي، مما يستدعي تركيزاً مماثلاً في البحث النفسي في العالم العربي . المصطلحات الرئيسية: الثقافة وعلم النفس، علم النفس عبر الثقافي، علم النفس الثقافي، علم النفس المحلي /المؤصل ثقافياً، النسبية الثقافية، الفردية والجماعية، البحث النفسي في العالم العربي، منظور نفسي للثقافة العربية.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
This article continues the discussion of methodology issues in cross-cultural research from AIB Insights issue 4 of 2012. It specifically addresses the failure to employ matched samples in comparative, cross-cultural studies, based on a Middle Eastern context, and so illustrates how to properly examine cultural differences in the region.
Indigenous psychologies (IPs) are constantly evolving. This issue's target articles by Kwang-Kuo Hwang (2019) and Louise Sundararajan (2019) recommend that IPs should be open to influences from other psychologies including mainstream psychology, but they differ in their other recommendations for IP. Hwang argues narrowly that IPs should use a specific approach and produce formal, reasonably context-free representations of parts of the IP researcher's home culture. These should be tested but are assumed to have an "irresistible" background influence on people's everyday thinking. Sundararajan argues instead for a broad communicative approach between all psychologies and that IPs should attend to research issues of global significance. I expect that IPs, which are already quite diverse, will become even more so in the future, while occasionally joining forces with other new developments in psychology. I also anticipate that IPs will move from a static "culture as shared" conceptualization of culture to a more dynamic, hybrid conceptualization that is in line with IPs' strivings for knowledge that is usable in the IP researcher's own society. Moreover, previously popular IP research issues related to national character and the like may become outdated. I provide some research suggestions in line with the idea that IPs should attend to issues of global general relevance.
Arabs represent a major cultural group, yet one that is rela-tively neglected in cultural psychology. We hypothesized that Arab culture is characterized by a unique form of interdepen-dence that is self-assertive. Arab cultural identity emerged historically in regions with harsh ecological and climatic envi-ronments, in which it was necessary to protect the survival of tribal groups. Individuals in Arabian cultures were honour-bound to be respectable and trustworthy group members. Supporting this hypothesis, study 1 found that Arabs were interdependent and holistic (like East Asians), but also self-assertive (like Westerners). This psychological profile was observed equally for both Muslim and Christian Arabs, thus ruling out Islamic religion as an alternative explanation for our findings. Studies 2 and 3 showed that the self-assertive tendency of Arabs is in service of interdependence, whereas that of Westerners is in service of independence. Our work contributes to the current effort by cultural psychologists to go beyond the prevailing East versus West, interdependence versus independence paradigm. It also speaks to the emerg-ing socioecological perspective in cultural research.
It was once assumed that the bedrock concepts of psychology held true for all the world’s peoples. More recently, post-modern approaches to research have expanded on these Western models, building a psychology that takes into account the sociopolitical, historical, religious, ecological, and other indigenous factors that make every culture, as well as every person as agents of their own actions.
Indigenous and Cultural Psychology surveys psychological and behavioral phenomena in native context in various developing and developed countries, with particular focus on Asia. An international team of 28 experts clarifies culture-specific concepts (such as paternalism and the Japanese concept of amae), models integrative methods of study, and dispels typical misconceptions about the field and its goals. The results reflect culturally sound frames of reference while remaining rigorous, systematic, and verifiable. These approaches provide a basis for the discovery of true psychological universals.
Among the topics featured:
• Scientific and philosophical bases of indigenous psychology
• Comparisons of indigenous, cultural, and cross-cultural psychologies
• Socialization, parent-child relationship, and family
• The private and public self: concepts from East Asia, Europe, and the Americas
• Interpersonal relationships: concepts from East Asia, Europe,, and the U.S.
• Factors promoting educational achievement and organizational effectiveness in Asia
• The growth and indigenization of psychology in developing and developed countries
• Are any values, attitudes, beliefs and traits universal? Cross-national comparisons
• The potential for indigenous psychology to lead to a global psychology
With this book, the editors have captured a growing field at a crucial stage in its evolution. Indigenous and Cultural Psychology benefits students and researchers on two levels, offering groundbreaking findings on understudied concepts, and signaling future directions in universal knowledge.
Markus and Kitayama's (1991) theory of independent and interdependent self-construals had a major influence on social, personality, and developmental psychology by highlighting the role of culture in psychological processes. However, research has relied excessively on contrasts between North American and East Asian samples, and commonly used self-report measures of independence and interdependence frequently fail to show predicted cultural differences. We revisited the conceptualization and measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals in 2 large-scale multinational surveys, using improved methods for cross-cultural research. We developed (Study 1: N = 2924 students in 16 nations) and validated across cultures (Study 2: N = 7279 adults from 55 cultural groups in 33 nations) a new 7-dimensional model of self-reported ways of being independent or interdependent. Patterns of global variation support some of Markus and Kitayama's predictions, but a simple contrast between independence and interdependence does not adequately capture the diverse models of selfhood that prevail in different world regions. Cultural groups emphasize different ways of being both independent and interdependent, depending on individualism-collectivism, national socioeconomic development, and religious heritage. Our 7-dimensional model will allow future researchers to test more accurately the implications of cultural models of selfhood for psychological processes in diverse ecocultural contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record
Race, culture, and ethnicity are critical components of the human experience, yet they are often treated as nuisance variables or as post hoc explanations for poorly predicted results. Mandates to pay attention to ethnocultural diversity in research have largely been ignored. Here, we affirm some basic principles of multicultural psychology in conceptually grounded research. We first identify the importance of clear and conceptually guided ethnocultural research, and describe multiple perspectives in the field. The first perspective, a generalizability approach, seeks to find similarities and universalities across diverse groups. The second perspective, a group differences approach, attempts to determine the generalizability and limits to generalizability across different groups that are assumed to represent different cultures. The third perspective, multicultural psychology, involves specifying and measuring the mechanisms of cultural influences on behavior in ethnocultural groups underrepresented in research. In contrast to conventional approaches to culture that apply existing models to other groups, we propose an "inside-out" model that prizes the perspectives of those in ethnocultural communities that are underrepresented in research and places a secondary emphasis on generalizability. We follow with examples and new directions for multicultural psychology research. This approach has the potential to enhance researchers' ability to answer conceptually derived research questions and in combination with the other approaches promises to enhance the advancement of psychological science generally. (PsycINFO Database Record
Cultural psychology, cross-cultural psychology, and indigenous psychology are the major psychological approaches to studying the relationship between culture and psychology. The three approaches have developed in relative isolation from each other, and each has accumulated a substantial corpus of theoretical and empirical work. This new book compares the similarities and differences of the three approaches, and it assesses their strengths and weaknesses.
In view of the fact that culture-inclusive psychology has been eluded or relatively ignored by mainstream psychology, the movement of indigenous psychology is destined to develop a new model of man that incorporates both causal psychology and intentional psychology as suggested by Vygotsky (1927). Following the principle of cultural psychology: “one mind, many mentalities” (Shweder et al., 1998), the Mandala Model of Self (Hwang, 2011a,b) and Face and Favor Model (Hwang, 1987, 2012) were constructed to represent the universal mechanisms of self and social interaction that can be applied to any culture; both models can be used as conceptual frameworks for analyzing mentalities of people in any given culture. Taking research works from Foundations of Chinese Psychology: Confucian Social Relation as exemplars (Hwang, 2012), this article illustrates how to construct culture-inclusive theories of Confucianism by multiple philosophical paradigms. The mechanism of culture-inclusive theory can be applied to explain qualitative research findings on lifeworld events of people in a particular society. It can also be utilized to predict results of quantitative research conducted to verify theoretical propositions in the scientific microworld by empirical methods.
This article provides a review of how cultural contexts shape and are shaped by psychological and neurobiological processes. We propose a framework that aims to culturally contextualize behavioral, genetic, neural, and physiological processes. Empirical evidence is presented to offer concrete examples of how neurobiological processes underlie social behaviors, and how these components are interconnected in larger cultural contexts. These findings provide some understanding of how the meanings shared by cultural experiences trigger a neurobiological, psychological, and behavioral chain of events, and how these events may be coordinated and maintained within a person. The review concludes with a reflection on the current state of cultural neuroscience and questions for the field to address. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology Volume 65 is January 03, 2014. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pubdates.aspx for revised estimates.
Contemporary psychologists in the Arabic-speaking world remain deeply concerned with many of the same foundational issues that have impeded the development of sustainable research traditions since at least the 1950s. As a means of assessing historical and current trends in regional research practices, the project reported in this article employs a content analysis method to assess the cultural sensitivity of peer-reviewed English-language empirical studies conducted on peoples of the Arabic-speaking world. Results suggest that cultural sensitivity is quite low on many of the dimensions assessed, including whether/how findings are applied to everyday settings, validity of methodological procedures employed, the way cultural contributions to psychological processes are discussed, the local relevance of conclusions drawn from empirical findings, and how theories and concepts are transferred from mainstream (Western) psychology. The current findings are used to suggest some strategic and potentially controversial connections between culturally sensitive research and developing an appropriate psychology.
This article examines the origin, development, and characteristics of the indigenous psychologies (IPs) initiated in various regions of the world. These IPs arose as a reaction to the mainstream version of psychology and seek to reflect the social, political, and cultural character of peoples around the world. Fifteen contributions from researchers from different parts of the world are presented, replying to four questions that were posed to them. A number of common themes were identified in the contributions. Post-colonial reactions to mainstream psychology, and the belief that it was not an efficient aid to solving local social problems, were seen as important reasons for developing IPs. IPs were generally seen as attempts to produce a local psychology within a specific cultural context. Different views about what methods are legitimate in IPs were present (from experiments to various more "humanistic'' methods). IPs were commonly seen as being able to open up, invigorate, and improve mainstream psychology. The style of theorizing in the IPs was felt by many to be to build theories from the "bottom up'' on the basis of local phenomena, findings, and experiences. Some contributors saw the IP as a kind of cultural psychology, and a few noted that IP and cross-cultural psychology have an interactive mutually enriching relationship. Nearly half of the contributors emphasized the critical reaction to their work on IP by colleagues working more in the line of mainstream psychology. Many contributors felt that IP could contribute to the development of a more general universal psychology. Different indications of heterogeneity in the IPs were found among the contributors, for example, with respect to the role given to religion in the local IP. Sometimes the presence of different IPs within the same country was reported. This also indicates heterogeneity in the IPs.
People in different cultures have strikingly different construals of the self, of others, and of the interdependence of the 2. These construals can influence, and in many cases determine, the very nature of individual experience, including cognition, emotion, and motivation. Many Asian cultures have distinct conceptions of individuality that insist on the fundamental relatedness of individuals to each other. The emphasis is on attending to others, fitting in, and harmonious interdependence with them. American culture neither assumes nor values such an overt connectedness among individuals. In contrast, individuals seek to maintain their independence from others by attending to the self and by discovering and expressing their unique inner attributes. As proposed herein, these construals are even more powerful than previously imagined. Theories of the self from both psychology and anthropology are integrated to define in detail the difference between a construal of the self as independent and a construal of the self as interdependent. Each of these divergent construals should have a set of specific consequences for cognition, emotion, and motivation; these consequences are proposed and relevant empirical literature is reviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
A history of cross-cultural psychology shows it to be an increasingly important part of modern psychology. Despite widespread agreement that culture is an indispensable component in the understanding of human behavior, there are noteworthy conceptual differences regarding the ways in which culture and behavior interrelate. Perspectives include absolutism and relativism, each with methodological consequences for such contemporary research concerns as values (including individualism-collectivism), gender differences, cognition, aggression, intergroup relations, and psychological acculturation. Societal concerns relating to these topics are briefly described. When all of psychology finally takes into account the effects of culture on human behavior (and vice versa), terms like cross-cultural and cultural psychology will become unnecessary. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
This paper presents the case of psychology from a perspective not widely recognized by the West, namely, the Egyptian, Arab, and Islamic perspective. It discusses the introduction and development of psychology in this part of the world. Whenever such efforts are evaluated, six problems become apparent: (1) the one-way interaction with Western psychology; (2) the intellectual dependency; (3) the remote relationship with national heritage; (4) its irrelevance to cultural and social realities; (5) the inhibition of creativity; and (6) the loss of professional identity. Nevertheless, some major achievements are emphasized, and a four-facet look into the 21st century is proposed.
Used the Rochester Interaction Record (RIR) to investigate the effects of individualism–collectivism on everyday social interaction. Triandis (in press) defined collectivism as placing great emphasis on (a) the views, needs, and goals of the in-group rather than of oneself, (b) social norms and duty defined by the in-group rather than behavior to get pleasure, (c) beliefs shared with the in-group rather than beliefs that distinguish oneself from in-group, (d) great readiness to cooperate with in-group members, and (e) intense emotional attachment to the in-group. University students in the United States, an individualistic country, and Hong Kong, which is highly collectivistic, maintained the RIR for 2 weeks. Consistent with predictions, the Hong Kong students had longer but fewer interactions (half as many) with fewer people, had a higher percentage of group and task interactions, and indicated greater self- and other-disclosure. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
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.
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.
As we estimate here, 68% of human beings--4.6 billion people--would say that religion is important in their daily lives. Past studies have found that the religious, on average, have higher subjective well-being (SWB). Yet, people are rapidly leaving organized religion in economically developed nations where religious freedom is high. Why would people leave religion if it enhances their happiness? After controlling for circumstances in both the United States and world samples, we found that religiosity is associated with slightly higher SWB, and similarly so across four major world religions. The associations of religiosity and SWB were mediated by social support, feeling respected, and purpose or meaning in life. However, there was an interaction underlying the general trend such that the association of religion and well-being is conditional on societal circumstances. Nations and states with more difficult life conditions (e.g., widespread hunger and low life expectancy) were much more likely to be highly religious. In these nations, religiosity was associated with greater social support, respect, purpose or meaning, and all three types of SWB. In societies with more favorable circumstances, religiosity is less prevalent and religious and nonreligious individuals experience similar levels of SWB. There was also a person-culture fit effect such that religious people had higher SWB in religious nations but not in nonreligious nations. Thus, it appears that the benefits of religion for social relationships and SWB depend on the characteristics of the society.
To test hypotheses about the universality of personality traits, college students in 50 cultures identified an adult or college-aged man or woman whom they knew well and rated the 11,985 targets using the 3rd-person version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Factor analyses within cultures showed that the normative American self-report structure was clearly replicated in most cultures and was recognizable in all. Sex differences replicated earlier self-report results, with the most pronounced differences in Western cultures. Cross-sectional age differences for 3 factors followed the pattern identified in self-reports, with moderate rates of change during college age and slower changes after age 40. With a few exceptions, these data support the hypothesis that features of personality traits are common to all human groups.
Psychological universals, or core mental attributes shared by humans everywhere, are a foundational postulate of psychology, yet explicit analysis of how to identify such universals is lacking. This article offers a conceptual and methodological framework to guide the investigation of genuine universals through empirical analysis of psychological patterns across cultures. Issues of cross-cultural generalizability of psychological processes and 3 cross-cultural research strategies to probe universals are considered. Four distinct levels of hierarchically organized universals are possible: From strongest to weakest claims for universality, they are accessibility universals, functional universals, existential universals, and nonuniversals. Finally, universals are examined in relation to the questions of levels of analysis, evolutionary explanations of psychological processes, and management of cross-cultural relations.
For over a decade the Middle East has monopolized news headlines in the West. Journalists and commentators regularly speculate that the region’s turmoil may stem from the psychological momentum of its cultural traditions or of a “tribal” or “fatalistic” mentality. Yet few studies of the region’s cultural psychology have provided a critical synthesis of psychological research on Middle Eastern societies. Drawing on autobiographies, literary works, ethnographic accounts, and life-history interviews, The Middle East: A Cultural Psychology offers the first comprehensive summary of psychological writings on the region, covering works by psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists written in English, Arabic, and French. Rejecting stereotypic descriptions of the “Arab mind” or “Muslim mentality,” Gary Gregg adopts a life-span development framework, examining influences on development in the context of recent work in cultural psychology, and compares Middle Eastern patterns less with Western middle class norms than with those described for the region’s neighbors: Hindu India, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Mediterranean shore of Europe. The psychological writings overwhelmingly suggest that the region’s strife stems much less from a stubborn adherence to tradition and resistance to modernity than from widespread frustration with broken promises of modernization - with the slow and halting pace of economic progress and democratization. A sophisticated account of the Middle East’s cultural psychology, this book provides students, researchers, policy-makers, and all those interested in the culture and psychology of the region with invaluable insight into the lives, families, and social relationships of Middle Easterners as they struggle to reconcile the lure of Westernized life-styles with traditional values.
The indigenous psychologies (IPs) stress the importance of research being grounded in the conditions and culture of the researcher's own society due to the dominance of Western culture in mainstream psychology. The nature and challenges of the IPs are discussed from the perspectives of science studies and anthropology of knowledge (the study of human understanding in its social context). The Element describes general social conditions for the development of science and the IPs globally, and their development and form in some specific countries. Next, some more specific issues relating to the IPs are discussed. These issues include the nature of the IPs, scientific standards, type of culture concept favored, views on the philosophy of science, understanding of mainstream psychology, generalization of findings, and the IPs' isolation and independence. Finally, conclusions are drawn, for example with respect to the future of the IPs.
The phrase “Arab world” refers to the Middle Eastern Arab countries from Morocco to the Arabian Gulf . Arab societies are highly diverse and consist of heterogeneous psychosocial systems based on ethnic, regional, socioeconomic, and national identities. Despite differences among the nations and regions of the Arab world, there are broad commonalities in religion, language, and psychosocial trends that are all part of the shared cultural heritage.
Keywords:
cultural psychology;
ethnicity;
cross-cultural psychology;
indigenous psychology;
international psychology
The essence of religion was once widely thought to be a unique form of experience that could not be explained in neurological, psychological, or sociological terms. In recent decades scholars have questioned the privileging of the idea of religious experience in the study of religion, an approach that effectively isolated the study of religion from the social and natural sciences. Religious Experience Reconsidered lays out a framework for research into religious phenomena that reclaims experience as a central concept while bridging the divide between religious studies and the sciences. Ann Taves shifts the focus from "religious experience," conceived as a fixed and stable thing, to an examination of the processes by which people attribute meaning to their experiences. She proposes a new approach that unites the study of religion with fields as diverse as neuroscience, anthropology, sociology, and psychology to better understand how these processes are incorporated into the broader cultural formations we think of as religious or spiritual. Taves addresses a series of key questions: how can we set up studies without obscuring contestations over meaning and value? What is the relationship between experience and consciousness? How can research into consciousness help us access and interpret the experiences of others? Why do people individually or collectively explain their experiences in religious terms? How can we set up studies that allow us to compare experiences across times and cultures? Religious Experience Reconsidered demonstrates how methods from the sciences can be combined with those from the humanities to advance a naturalistic understanding of the experiences that people deem religious.
Three aspects of the self (private, public, collective) with different probabilities in different kinds of social environments were sampled. Three dimensions of cultural variation (individualism-collectivism, tightness-looseness, cultural complexity) are discussed in relation to the sampling of these three aspects of the self. The more complex the culture, the more frequent the sampling of the public and private self and the less frequent the sampling of the collective self. The more individualistic the culture, the more frequent the sampling of the private self and the less frequent the sampling of the collective self. Collectivism, external threat, competition with outgroups, and common fate increase the sampling of the collective self. Cultural homogeneity results in tightness and in the sampling of the collective self. The article outlines theoretical links among aspects of the environment, child-rearing patterns, and cultural patterns, which are linked to differential sampling of aspects of the self. Such sampling has implications for social behavior. Empirical investigations of some of these links are reviewed.
This book takes a bold stand: all psychology should be culturally sensitive psychology, especially when studying religious phenomena. It explains that culture is not simply to be conceived of as a variable that possibly influences behavior. Rather, it stresses that cultural patterns of acting, thinking and experiencing are created, adopted and promulgated by a number of individuals jointly. As human subjectivity is different in different cultures, cultural psychology is not interested in comparatively investigating how experiences and behavior, attitudes and social relationships present themselves within different cultural conditions. By consequence, cultural psychology does not start from Western psychological constructs, testing for their presence in other cultures, but from human acts and activities in specific cultures, analyzing them in a hermeneutical way. Like cultural psychology, psychology of religion currently enjoys more and more interest and rapid growth. But the two fields have remained rather unconnected in the recent past. Psychological research on religion has been pursued from a number of perspectives, among which a cultural psychological one has not yet become prominent. As religions, however conceptualized, are cultural entities of major importance, cultural psychology seems a natural ally to research on religion. Containing a number of studies, both theoretical and empirical, this volume takes a step towards a rapprochement of cultural psychology and psychology of religion. Having received several international awards and distinctions, Jacob A. Belzen is one of Europe's best-known psychologists of religion. As he has obtained doctorates in social science, history, philosophy and sciences of religion, his numerous publications are characterized by a strong interdisciplinary approach. He is a full professor at the University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands). He worked on this book while he was a visiting Fellow at Cambridge University (UK).
Bickhard (2004) has made the following comments on the development of science:. Every science passes through a phase in which it considered its basic subject matter to be some sort of substance or structure. Fire was identified with phlogiston; heat with caloric; and life with vital fluid. Every science has passed beyond that phase, recognizing its subject matter as being some sort of process: combustion in the case of fire; random thermal motion in case of heat; and certain kinds of far from thermodynamic equilibrium in the case of life. (p. 122). In the case of cross-cultural and cultural psychology, decades of research have revealed many substantive differences among cultures (see Chiu. amp;amp; Hong, 2006, 2007; Lehman, Chiu, & Schaller, 2004). The field is now ready to transition into a new phase “that empirically establishes linkages between the active cultural ingredients hypothesized to cause between-country differences and the observed differences themselves” (Matsumoto & Yoo, 2006, p. 234).
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.
New York: Cambridge University Press
- J W Berry
- Y H Poortinga
- M H Segall
- P R Dasen
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002) Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Boas, F. (1928). Anthropology and Modern Life. New York, NY: Norton.
Indigenou psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context
- V G Enriquez
Enriquez, V. G. (1993). Developing a Filipino psychology. In U. Kim & J. Berry,
Indigenou psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp.
152-169). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cultural psychology (2nd
- S J Heine
Heine, S. J.(2012). Cultural psychology (2nd. Ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
Psycology of Religion: An Emperical Approach
- R Hood
- P C Hill
- B Spilka
Hood,R.W& Hill, P. C., & Spilka., B.(2009). Psycology of Religion: An Emperical
Approach (4 th ed,).New York: Guilford Press
Culture. A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions (Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnoloy
- A L Kroeber
- C Kluckhohn
Kroeber, A. L. & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture. A Critical Review of Concepts
and Definitions (Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology
and Ethnoloy, Harvard University, vol. XLVII, No. 1). Cambridge, MA:
Peabody Museum.
Psychology and Cuture. Annual Reviews of Psychology
- D Lehman
- C Chiu
- M Schaller
Lehman, D., Chiu, C. & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and Cuture. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 55, 689-714.
Religion, Spirituality, and Health
- K S Masters
- S A Hooker
Masters,K. S., and Hooker,S.A. (2013). Religion, Spirituality, and Health.The Guiford Press.
Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures
- R R Mccrae
- P T Costa
- Jr
- T A Martin
- V E Oryol
- A A Rukavishnikov
- I G Senin
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E., Rukavishnikov, A. A.,
Senin, I. G., et al. (2004). Consensual validation of personality traits across
cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 179-201.
Values and religiosity:A meta analysis of studies using Schwartz's model
- V Saroglou
- V Delpierre
- R Rdernelle
Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & rDernelle, R.(2004).Values and religiosity:A meta
analysis of studies using Schwartz's model. Personality and Individual
Differences, 37, 721-734.
Cultural and crosscultural psychology of religion
- V Saroglou
- A B Cohen
Saroglou, V.,& Cohen,A. B.(2013). Cultural and crosscultural psychology of religion, In R. F. Paloutzian and C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the Psychology
of Religion and Spirituality (pp.330-354.