The Handbook of International Psychology

Michael J. Stevens, Danny Wedding

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781135941093
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

World events have raised pressing questions of psychology as it is practiced all over the globe. The Handbook of International Psychology chronicles the discipline of psychology as it evolves in different regions, in the hope of reducing the isolated, parochial, and ethnocentric nature of the American profession. It surveys the history, methodology, education and training, and the future of psychology in nine distinct regions across six continents. They represent long histories in the field, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, emerging practices, such as Uganda, Korea and Spain, the lesser-known philosophies of China and histories marked by massive social change, as in Poland and Iran. The editors have carefully selected contributors, as well as an editorial board created especially for this project. Each chapter follows a uniform outline, unifying the volume as a whole, but allowing for the cultural diversity and status of psychology in each country.

CHAPTER 1

International Psychology: An Overview

MICHAEL J. STEVENS AND DANNY WEDDING

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, we introduce the specialty of international psychology. We begin by defining international psychology and distinguishing it from cross-cultural psychology and ethnic studies. We then examine two sources for the emergence and growth of international psychology: economic and political change and the limited utility of Western psychology as applied to complex and contextual global issues. We also survey five global concerns of contemporary significance that have given impetus to international psychology: intergroup conflict, societal transformation and national development, threats to the natural environment, physical and mental health needs, and the struggles of disempowered groups. Next, we describe the mission and activities of scientific and professional organizations that represent international psychology and the interface between international psychology and policy-making entities, specifically, the United Nations and World Health Organization. We then address the future of international psychology, particularly trends toward greater unity and curriculum development. We conclude by linking our overview of international psychology to the objectives and foci of the Handbook of International Psychology.

1.2 DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

International psychology can be defined in terms of its mission and the domain of scientific knowledge and professional practice that it subsumes. The chief aim of international psychology is to promote communication and collaboration among psychologists worldwide in the areas of teaching, research, practice, and public service. More precisely, the goals of international psychology are to promote international understanding and goodwill among people with similar interests from different national and cultural backgrounds, to monitor psychology’s cultural dependence, to capacity-build through transnational research and practice, and to facilitate the development of an international curriculum (Pawlik & d’Ydewalle, 1996; Sabourin, 2001). Mechanisms for enhancing communication and collaboration include organizations that represent the interests of international psychologists, regional and international conferences, journals that publish literature on international psychology, international exchange programs, and Internet resources. One index of the desire of psychologists to communicate and collaborate internationally is the proliferation of international organizations and journals, which we describe later. Clearly, the goals of international psychology are timely, given the complexities of an increasingly interdependent and rapidly changing world.

Beyond its mission of enhancing communication and collaboration, international psychology includes the application of psychology to an array of problems that have no borders. Among the more urgent international problems are terrorism, globalization’s weakening of nation-states, global warming, HIV/AIDS, and traffic in women and children. Innovative conceptual models, investigative methodologies, and intervention strategies are needed to understand, study, and influence these problems. Moreover, because these problems are rooted in a complex matrix of culture, economics, history, politics, psychology, and religion, a comprehensive approach to their explanation and solution requires both a multidisciplinary and transnational framework. International psychology has already added creativity and vitality to the scientific and professional responses to global problems.

In contrast to international psychology, cross-cultural psychology can be defined as the study of culture’s effects on human functioning. It involves comparing different cultural groups whose members share distinct perceptions and experiences that determine identifiable patterns of behavior (Jing, 2000). Cross-cultural psychology is a feature of international psychology (e.g., international psychologists devise models, conduct research, and intervene within a cultural context).

Ethnic studies is another specialty that overlaps with, but does not duplicate, international psychology. It entails investigating ethnic minority issues and applying psychological knowledge and techniques to those issues. Unlike cross-cultural psychology, which compares the impact of different cultures, ethnic studies emphasizes the impact of minority status on an ethnic group within a single culture. Ethnic studies is also essential to international psychology (e.g., international psychologists are interested in intergroup relations). Clearly, the emphasis of international psychology on scientific and professional communication and collaboration gives it a process focus, and its attention to global issues gives it a broader scope than either cross-cultural psychology or ethnic studies.

1.3 DISSATISFACTION WITH WESTERN PSYCHOLOGY

Dissatisfaction with Western psychology has contributed to the increased prominence of international psychology. Two sources for this dissatisfaction are the emergence of economic and political systems in the developing world that are more person-centered and the limited utility of psychological paradigms imported from the West.

The U.S. has 100,000–150,000 psychologists, approximately 20–25% of the world’s psychologists (Rosenzweig, 1999). These estimates are inexact due to the lack of international agreement on criteria for using the title of psychologist. There is consensus, however, that the proportion of American psychologists will shrink because psychology worldwide is rapidly expanding (Rosenzweig). The expansion of psychology can be attributed to a rise in the number of countries whose economic and political systems depend on the role of the individual within society (Jing, 2000; Rosenzweig). Various forms of free-market democracy that fuel industrialization have also precipitated demands for psychology as a science and profession. For example, the link between economic and human development and the growth of psychology is manifested by the interest shown by governments, business and industry, and the general population in psychology as a means of enhancing national achievement and personal well-being. These trends are shifting the spotlight away from Western psychology to emerging psychologies that mirror the worldviews of developing countries and regions; they are also compelling Western psychologists to engage in dialogue with their psychology colleagues around the world.

Western psychology has proven somewhat useful when applied transnationally. For example, Bandura (2002) illustrated how efficacy expectations are not limited to judgments about personal capabilities, but are complemented by perceptions of collective efficacy. Collective efficacy consists of shared beliefs in a group’s ability to produce desired outcomes through collective action. It reflects more than the sum of individual efficacy expectations; it embodies the interactive dynamics of a group. Collective efficacy is also situationally, historically, and culturally constituted, meaning that the specific, agentic group behavior it mediates reflects the multiple contexts in which it occurs. One contemporary expression of collective efficacy is the extent to which countries affected by globalization make transnational systems work more effectively for them.

Western psychology’s focus on intra- and interpersonal causation has more typically yielded incomplete accounts of phenomena constituted in the non-Western world. The limited transnational usefulness of Western psychology is based on three paradigmatic criticisms (Gergen, 2001; Prilleltensky & Fox, 1997). First, because Western psychology is relatively decontextualized, psychologists often fail to appreciate the significance of the domains in which human functioning is embedded. Second, Western psychology leans toward reductionism; as a result, psychologists frequently dismantle the unity that provides a more accurate, complete, and meaningful view of psychological phenomenon. Finally, Western psychology can be hegemonic and oppressive, increasing the risk of ethnocentric science and practice.

Although psychology has a growing global presence, its characteristics remain diverse and are intimately connected to the history and culture of a country or region. Indigenous psychologies, which emerge from enduring social and cultural traditions, offer worldviews that resist imported perspectives. Indigenous psychology is defined as behavioral science and practice rooted in the realities of a particular society and culture (Sinha, 1997). For example, although psychology was introduced to Asia by the West, its contemporary forms reveal elements of Buddhism (e.g., spiritual practices that cultivate serenity and enlightenment) and Confucianism (e.g., the role of education in creating social harmony) (Jing, 2000; Walsh, 2000). Likewise, liberation psychology in Latin America is grounded in the awakening of social consciousness and the realignment of imported theory, research, and practice with the lives of people whom psychology has a responsibility to serve (Comas-Díaz, 2000; Comas-Díaz, Lykes, & Alarcón, 1998). Dissident Argentine psychologists demedicalized psychoanalysis and integrated elements of Marxism to form a socially relevant praxis that melds intrapsychic and class struggles. These examples reveal how psychology has not only resisted, but also challenged the hegemony of Western psychology in order to restore contextual validity to the discipline and profession (Gergen, 2001; Sinha, 1997).

International psychology is an antidote to the uncritical application of Western psychology. By questioning claims of objectivity that supersede culture and a universally applicable investigative methodology, international psychology affirms the necessity of constructing meaningful understanding and applications based on a constitutive view of human functioning (Gergen, 2001; Sinha, 1997). It is sensitive, knowledgeable, and skilled in terms of psychological conceptualizations, methods of acquiring knowledge, and strategies for change. Furthermore, in acknowledging psychology’s history and capacity to unwittingly support institutions that maintain oppressive values, international psychology takes responsibility for being value-laden and identifies itself, in part, as a force for justice and human welfare (Prilleltensky & Fox, 1997; Staub & Green, 1992). By advancing values to the position of figure in the gestalt that is psychology, international psychology promotes less esoteric science and practice. International psychology will continue to respond to calls for solutions to pressing global concerns that include intergroup conflict, national transformation and development, threats to the natural environment, physical and mental health needs, and the struggles of disempowered groups.

1.4 CONCERNS OF GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE

1.4.1 Intergroup Conflict

Millions suffer under conditions of systemic violence that exist at various levels, including the family, community, society, or region. The late 1990s witnessed an explosion in intergroup violence as evidenced by numerous conflicts, the most extreme of which reached genocidal proportions in Bosnia and Rwanda (Mays, Bullock, Rosenzweig, & Wessells, 1998). A fundamental challenge for psychology is to transform systems of violence into cultures of peace, thus ending psychological, physical, and structural violence and creating conditions and processes that foster individual and collective well-being and growth (Wessells, 2000).

International psychology offers perspectives and tools for understanding and resolving intergroup conflict. International psychology recognizes the need to adopt a multidisciplinary perspective, to consider the interplay between macro-level institutions and micro-level processes, and to generate solutions based on local strengths and resources that are sensitive to diversity (Mays et al., 1998).

The worldviews of groups serve to facilitate or inhibit violent conflict. These worldviews consist of enduring ways of collectively understanding past, present, and anticipated events; such understanding mediates collective emotion and action. Collective worldviews can be dangerous because they are assumed to be true by a significant number of group members and because they are the bedrock of identification and socialization within a culture. Regrettably, collective worldviews contain distortions that are seldom questioned by group members; such biases include the selective recall of a group’s history or the embellishment of historical narratives. Collective worldviews may trigger intergroup conflict when they supersede an objective evaluation of the intentions of others and limit opportunities for cooperation. Eidelson and Eidelson (2003) identify five collective worldviews that either promote or constrain intergroup conflict: superiority, injustice, vulnerability, distrust, and helplessness. Shared beliefs about superiority imply an in-group bias that can justify violent preservation of a group’s social advantage, restoration of its usurped status, and purification of its membership, as well as interfere with intergroup reconciliation. The collective worldview of injustice strengthens a group’s conviction that it has legitimate grievances against another group. Such convictions, real or perceived, heighten allegiance to the group, target an out-group as responsible, and mobilize violence (e.g., the Serbian belief of being unjustly denied respect as defenders of Europe). A group’s belief in its vulnerability rests on perceptions of threat that heighten solidarity and precipitate hostility toward the source of threat.

Ethnic competition theory suggests that the increased mixing of people in contemporary urban societies enflames intergroup competition that may evoke ethnic identification; this contrasts with Allport’s hypothesis that increased contact between groups will lead them to appreciate their similarities. Some groups engage in preemptive violence to preserve their integrity, and extreme threats to group survival can produce intractable conflict (e.g., the Middle East) or genocide (e.g., Rwanda). More subtle threats, such as the diluting of language and tradition through assimilation and globalization, can also prompt violence. Collective distrust occurs when one group believes that another group harbors ominous intentions. Such distrust forms the core of out-group stereotypes and can reach paranoid levels, as in the collective delusion of persecution, justification of hostility toward an alleged persecutory group, and unwillingness to examine evidence for entrenched suspicions. Finally, unlike superiority, injustice, vulnerability, and distrust, a group’s sense of helplessness inhibits expression of intergroup conflict. Such beliefs lead to an attributional style in which a group explains its inferior status as enduring, pervasive, and due to inherent weaknesses. Advantaged groups may exploit helpless groups by further convincing them of their unworthiness to share in society’s rights and privileges.

Approaches to studying intergroup conflict include the examination of competing worldviews in a multidisciplinary context, separation of overlapping from independent elements of collective worldviews, identification of variables that harden or soften collective worldviews, and delineation of the relationship between individual and collective worldviews (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003). Research on the aftermath of intergroup conflict often entails analyses of the testimony of survivors of violence and how adversarial groups maintain or revise interpretations of their relations (Mays et al., 1998); consideration of how individuals and communities come to terms with personal and collective loss and trauma gives a practical focus to this research. Indigenous approaches, such as liberation discourse, permit the rescue of cultural identity from survivors and the creation of a future. Such methods require that psychologists think culturally when working with those affected by intergroup conflict to discover alternative understandings of their suffering (Comas-Díaz et al., 1998).

In general, building cultures of tolerance and peace entails lowering the degree to which groups in conflict perceive each other as threats (Sullivan & Transue, 1999; Wessells, 2000); it also involves applying what can be learned from naturally occurring “outbreaks” of peace, as in the Baltic states where positive intergroup attitudes appear linked to a common history, language, and religion. The Middle East and Northern Ireland offer examples of psychological contributions to the reduction of group tension and violence. Rouhana and Bar-Tal (1998) describe a problem-solving workshop for high-ranking Israelis and Palestinians intended to foster an ethos of peace. The workshop provides a setting and rules for constructive engagement geared toward mutual problem-solving. Though time-consuming, such deep-rooted conflict requires sustained and facilitated interaction in order to build trust and empathy, examine competing beliefs about group relations, and explore joint visions of peace. In Northern Ireland, realistic group-conflict theory has inspired government initiatives to reform an educational system that, unwittingly, has maintained group tensions by segregating Catholic and Protestant children (Cairns & Darby, 1998). Based on the hypothesis that contact between conflicting groups diminishes intergroup misunderstanding, the Education for Mutual Understanding and Cultural Heritage program designed a common curriculum that encourages Catholic and Protestant schools to establish contact between their pupils.

1.4.2 Societal Transformation and National Development

Societal transformation and the struggle for national development unleash tremendous social problems that exact a staggering personal and collective toll. Societal transformation is a massive and complex phenomenon that has cultural, economic, familial, institutional, personal, and religious dimensions. As a society undergoes transformation, virtually all aspects of social living become fluid and have uncertain outcomes. Established routines are interrupted, accustomed ways of thinking and acting are challenged, familiar social hierarchies collapse, and possibilities that could not have been foreseen become realities (e.g., homelessness, self-determination) (Stevens, 2002). Examples of societal transformation and national development can be found in countries that have survived distinct forms of oppression and struggle to realize their chosen economic, political, and social destiny: East European countries that endured communism, Latin American countries that have been oppressed by military dictatorships, and African countries that suffered racial autocracy. The causes, processes, and outcomes of societal transformation are also observable as developing countries encounter globalization.

International psychology can facilitate societal transformation and national development (Stevens, 2002). It supports these phenomena as legitimate domains of inquiry, and it endorses a multidimensional, multidisciplinary, and culturally sensitive framework for understanding, studying, and intervening in such macrosocial change. It encourages communication and collaboration among psychologists with different expertise from around the world on ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Advisory Board
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Contributors
• 1. International Psychology: An Overview
• Africa
• North America
• South America
• East Asia
• South Asia
• East Europe
• West Europe
• The Middle East
• The Pacific Rim
• Appendix
• Index