Readings in Ethnic Psychology

Pamela Balls Organista, Kevin Chun, Gerardo Marin, Pamela Balls Organista, Kevin Chun, Gerardo Marin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781317827924
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Clinical Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This pioneering reader is a collection of fundamental writings on the influence of culture and ethnicity on human social behavior. An overview of current psychological knowledge about African Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, and Hispanics/Latinos in the United States, Readings in Ethnic Psychology addresses basic concepts in the field--race, ethnic identity, acculturation and biculturalism. In addition, psychosocial conditions such as risk behaviors, adaptive health behaviors, psychological distress, and culturally appropriate interventions are also explored.

Part I.
Psychology And Ethnicity

Theoretical and Methodological Considerations

In its relatively short history, psychology has paid significant attention to the development and evaluation of methodological approaches to study human behavior. Whether developing an interview schedule or a test, or planning an experiment or the evaluation of an intervention, psychologists have been trained to pay close attention to the validity and reliability of measurements, to the proper definition of variables and operationalization of hypotheses, to the internal and external validity of research designs, to the inherent limitations in generalizing research findings, and to other important considerations. Surprisingly, little attention has been given to the analysis of the role on behavior of such social characteristics as gender, ethnicity, culture, and social class. Nevertheless, the last few decades have seen an increase in the awareness of researchers and theoreticians of the need to consider these variables. For example, few studies are currently published that do not address the gender of the respondents and its possible effects on the results. Psychologists also have become more attentive to the role of culture and ethnicity in shaping a person’s behavior. Unfortunately, not enough has happened. Indeed, there are journals dedicated to publishing research where ethnicity or culture plays a major role as a variable. But it is still unusual to find culture or ethnicity addressed in psychology textbooks or for ethnicity to be included in research published by the major journals.

As Lee Anna Clark mentions in the first article in this section, there has been what seems to be a general disinterest on the part of “mainstream” psychology for what is going on in cross-cultural psychology. As Clark suggests, this process of mutual ignorance could be due to factors such as the value given to some specific variables and problems with the unfortunate result that important explanatory elements are being ignored in the psychology we teach and apply. Other authors have suggested that the lack of attention to culture and ethnicity in psychology is the result of myopic postures on the part of psychologists who favor the dismissal of such social variables as gender, poverty, ethnicity, and social structure as important predictors or mediators of behavior. A possible third group of critics argue that psychology has been intensely sexist and racist, making it difficult for established individuals to accept the role of gender and culture on human behavior or even to consider that culture, ethnicity, social class, and gender can produce attitudes, norms, expectancies, and behaviors that differ from those found among male, middle class, non-Hispanic whites. Whatever the explanation, and probably there is a kernel of truth in all of them, the fact is that psychology must acknowledge the role of ethnicity in shaping human behavior if it is to remain vital and relevant.

But crucial in this process is not only the recognition that culture plays an important role in explaining and predicting human behavior. Also important is the need to conduct research that properly reflects the experiences and perceptions of the individuals in question. This concern for proper methodologies is close to psychologists’ traditions and some of the central issues are presented in the article by Sumie Okazaki and Stanley Sue. Researchers often have argued that culturally appropriate research must go beyond translating instruments or even adapting them for use with individuals of different cultures. As argued by Okazaki and Sue, the development of appropriate methods must address the careful selection of samples, the development of equivalent measures, and the culturally sensitive interpretation of the results. The use of appropriate methodologies can, of course, enhance the validity and usefulness of the results.

The two selections in this section of the book serve to set the stage against which to judge the value and generalizability of the scientific literature you will read as part of your psychology classes. The issues discussed in both readings are central as students and researchers come in contact with an increasing number of published research that involve members of ethnic groups.

Further Readings

Betancourt, H., and Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48, 629-37.

Hall, C. C. I. (1997). Cultural malpractice: The growing obsolescence of Psychology with the changing U.S. population. American Psychologist, 52, 642-51.

Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability testing American Psychologist, 47, 1083-1101.

Howitt, D., and Owusu-Bempah, J. (1994). The racism of psychology: Timefor change. New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.

Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., and Brown-Collins, A. (1992). Cultural diversity and methodology in feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 145-63.

Marín, G., and VanOss Marín, B. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Root, M. P. P. (1992). Back to the drawing board: Methodological issues in research on multiracial people. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 181-89). Newbury Park CA: Sage.

Stanfield, J. H., II, and Dennis, R. M. (eds.). (1993). Race and ethnicity in research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407-415

van de Vijver, F., and Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1.
Mutual Relevance of Mainstream and Cross-Cultural Psychology

Lee Anna Clark

Mainstream and cross-cultural psychologists have shared one salient characteristic: a general disinterest in each other’s work. However, despite this mutual neglect, the two subdisciplines actually address many of the same basic issues. If culture is seen as a complex, multidimensional structure rather than as a simple categorical variable, cross-cultural studies can be viewed as a direct and logical extension of our search for the causes of variation in human psychology and psychopathology. More important, the search for culturally correlated factors is necessary for any comprehensive psychological theory. Differences in theoretical orientation and methodological approach that serve to divide the field are seen as complementary when such a framework is adopted. Barriers to communication, such as stereotyping and the use of specialized terminology, are also discussed.

Many psychologists do not read beyond the titles of articles bearing the cross-cultural label, even if the substantive content of such articles appears to be related to their field of interest. Originally touted as an important source for theoretical ideas and a powerful methodology, (e.g., Strodtbeck, 1964; J. Whiting, 1968), the very words cross-cultural have become alienating to mainstream psychologists, whereas some cross-cultural researchers read little else. They have become so focused on cross-cultural comparisons, universal generalizations, and methodological refinements that they have lost touch with advances in their field within their home countries.

Of course, this split is not absolute, and even the importance of the distinction has been challenged. Many important research problems have relied on cross-cultural data for verification.¹ Some analysts believe that a split once existed but that great strides toward integration have been made, perhaps rendering the distinction unimportant (Brislin, 1983). Others assert that the boundaries between the fields continue to impede understanding (Kleinman and Good, 1985). Certainly, we may agree that it is the rare investigator who integrates cross-cultural findings into research hypothesis or who uses a cross-cultural approach as one of many tools in a broad program of research (Segall, 1986).

Why has the promise of cross-cultural research been only partially fulfilled? What factors have contributed to the relative lack of integration between mainstream and cross-cultural psychology? How might we begin to bridge such a gap? The goal of this article is to examine these issues. The approach will be twofold. First, the bases for the division between these two groups and barriers to communication, including negative mutual stereotypes and cross-cultural terminology, will be examined. Second, alternative ways of viewing the field of psychology that can encompass both traditions will be proposed. The purpose is to heighten awareness that the distinction between mainstream and cross-cultural psychology is artificial and unnecessary, that the issues that plague one area are concerns of the other as well, and that the variables comprising what we call “culture” are not qualitatively different from other commonly studied psychological variables.

Gap between Mainstream and Cross-Cultural Psychologists

Distinctions of this sort arise and are maintained for many reasons. There are often fundamental differences in the philosophical or theoretical underpinnings of the two points of view, in what investigators in each group find interesting or important; and in their definitions of, or their goals for, studying the field. There may also be a sense of uniqueness or specialness in each subgroup. In the case of mainstream versus cross-cultural psychology, several of these explanations are likely, and two basic reasons for alignment with one camp or the other can be isolated.

Two Underlying Bases of Division

The first divergence is primarily theoretical and depends on the importance placed on culture as a causal variable in human psychology. Brislin, Lonner, and Thorndike (1973) formulated a widely accepted definition of cross-cultural psychology as based on the belief that members of various cultural groups have “different experiences that lead to predictable and significant differences in behavior” (p. 5). Although few readers would dispute the truth of this assertion, cultural variables do not play a central role in the theories or research of most mainstream psychologists; indeed, they are often viewed as nuisance variables if they are considered at all (Segall, 1986). Cross-cultural articles are happily given a passing citation if they support one’s hypotheses but are usually ignored if they do not. Contradictory results may be dismissed as uninterpretable due to the cultural factors, and the issues raised by contradictory findings may be judged irrelevant. I am not suggesting that such arguments are ordinarily made in print. On the contrary, researchers make these decisions (often with little serious consideration of the issues) as they review the relevant literature. Likewise, mainstream practitioners of psychology tend to emphasize either the importance of general intrapsychic processes or the importance of specific factors unique to each individual’s history. In either case, cultural variables rarely play a major role.

In contrast, cross-cultural psychologists maintain that cultural factors must not be dismissed so lightly. They view cultural factors as essential to a psychological understanding of all human beings, not as nuisance variables to be controlled or ignored. Cross-cultural psychologists emphasize that the study of diverse cultures not only tests the generality of a theory developed in one culture but, if carried out systematically, sheds light on which of many cultural variables are related to the phenomena of interest and, ultimately, may lead to theories of how cultures exert their psychological effects. (Admittedly, few psychologists have carried out a systematic investigation of this sort, and we are far from understanding what the psychologically relevant cultural variables are or how they operate.) Similarly, practitioners with a cross-cultural orientation view culture, and especially cultural differences (either between therapists and client or between the client’s home culture and adopted culture), as a primary cause of difficulty, both in the client’s life and in therapy. Cultural differences are also a good source of hypotheses for understanding causal factors in client distress, test scores, and so on (Pedersen, Draguns, Lonner and Trimble, 1981).

The second divergence is related to the first but is basically methodological. It involves differing beliefs about the most appropriate, and effective, and efficient way to study psychology, that is, it involves a difference in approach to the field. Discussions of cross-cultural psychology as a field inevitably include, and often emphasize, the importance and uniqueness of its methodologies (e.g., Brislin et al., 1973: Draguns, 1981; Price-Williams, 1975). Triandis (1980b) noted that, whereas cross-cultural psychology borrows theories from mainstream psychology, “it does have a unique set of methods. Thus, cross-cultural psychology is defined by its methodology rather than by its theory” (pp. 6–7). This is meant not to imply that all cross-cultural psychologists use a single, common methodology but that they are committed to a set of “guidelines for not imposing one’s own cultural standards when gathering data in another” (Brislin, 1983, p. 365). In contrast, the imposition of the researcher’s standards, assumptions, and theoretical constructs is the norm in mainstream research: The assumption is made that the subject’s standard and structures will be the same.

An analogy to the idiographic-nomothetic distinction has been made in which within-culture study (i.e., most mainstream research) corresponds to the idiographic approach and cross-cultural study corresponds to the nomothetic approach (Butcher and Pancheri, 1976). In this view, mainstream and cross-cultural research each possess the strengths and liabilities of their counterpart. For example, mainstream research, like idiographic research, may provide a rich characterization but has limited generalizability because interpretation of the data depends too exclusively on the meanings attached to stimuli by one subject (whether that be a single person or a single culture). Cross-cultural, nomothetic research ideally promotes the development of general laws but may produce unfruitful or even misleading results depending on the extent to which the investigated concepts are not basic psychological variables but are poorly conceived hypothetical constructs that have been imposed on subjects by the experimenter. Thus, when constructs are interpreted without subjects’ views of what the stimuli meant to them, the actual contribution of the hypothesized constructs to the overall variance observed may be very slight. As with proponents on each side of the idiographic-nomothetic distinction, both mainstream and cross-cultural researchers tend to focus on and elevate the strengths of their approach while minimizing the seriousness of its limitations. Furthermore, the disadvantages of the opposition are usually noted, and issues that are central to the opposition are downplayed.

Thus, mainstream psychologists tend to ignore the methods developed by cross-cultural psychologists for dealing with cultural variables, and they are largely unconcerned about the issues that cross-cultural psychologists raise. They deal with cultural variables simply by holding them constant and by working within a single culture. Even when these issues cannot (or should not) be ignored, as in the psychological assessment of a person of non-majority status, they are often minimized or given superficial treatment.

Cross-cultural psychologists, in contrast, emphasize how the increased range of variables available for study in different cultures allows for better tests of hypotheses. They are very concerned with finding commonalities between variables that are clearly related but have different manifestations across cultures, and they stress the importance of this activity for generalization (e.g., Brislin, 1983). This is especially true in the psychological assessment of nonmajority clients, where questions are continually raised concerning the appropriateness of test usage outside the specific culture or subculture of development or concerning the equivalence of translation (e.g., Brislin, 1980; Irvine and Carroll, 1980). On the other hand, the commitment of cross-cultural psychologists to the search for universal (nomothetics) may lead to such a level of abstraction that the resulting generalizations are “vague tautologies and forceless banalities” (Geertz, 1965, p. 103; see also Berry, 1980; Lonner; 1980).

Two Major Barriers to Communication

In addition to underlying differences in theoretical orientation and preferred methodological approach, there are at least two other factors that influence each group’s judgment of the other and that inhibit the fruitful interplay between groups. These factors are in one sense more superficial, but they are also thereby more concrete and may contribute more strongly to each group’s consciously stated disinterest in the other.

Negative stereotypes: truths, half-truths, and falsehoods. Cross-cultural psychology has acquired a reputation for sloppily designed studies in which there are so many uncontrolled relevant variables that no reasonable conclusions can be drawn. This negative stereotype may hold more than a grain of truth. The unhappy fact is that there have been many theoretically empty and methodologically weak cross-cultural studies (Triandis, 1980b). For a time, it was fashionable to take one’s sabbatical abroad, gather data with a favorite test or procedure in the visited culture (using a popular c...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Permissions Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• PART I. PSYCHOLOGY AND ETHNICITY Theoretical and Methodological Considerations
• PART II. PSYCHOLOGY AND ETHNICITY Basic Questions
• PART III. ETHNIC IDENTITY
• PART IV. ACCULTURATION AND BICULTURALISM
• PART V. RISK BEHAVIORS
• PART VI. CULTURE, BEHAVIOR, AND HEALTH
• PART VII. PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS
• PARI VIII. CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE INTERVENTIONS
• Name Index
• Subject Index