Talk:Cultural psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isabellaortegaa19 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sunflowerkarli, Tfranji.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yoyomama123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Science:- Inquiry or Prejudice?

I feel there is a problem with the entry here in that it appears to be based within the self-definition of a particular grouping within the sphere of Cultural Psychology rather than being an objective appraisal of it. In a recent email conversation with Professor Triandis, he defined the differences between Cultural Psychology and Cross-cultural Psychology as follows:

 A better way to distinguish the two is that cross-cultural psychology looks at data across 
 many cultures (e.g., 50), while cultural psychology looks at data across two at a time.

and then, in answer to my confusion:

 In anthropology the scientist studies one culture and compares it with his own.

There is a very big problem in defining Cultural Psychology in the way this article does. Psychology is a science. As such, it progresses from data, gathered through clear methodologies, to analysis and then hypothesis. To define Cultural Psychology in terms such as:

". . .a cultural psychologist would be interested in how the social practices of a particular set of cultures shape the development of cognitive processes in different ways."

is that it predefines the existence of something called culture and assumes that this supposition is in some way proved by the apparent fact that "social practices" appear to be held in common by national groupings. This is the process of a non-science. To then go further and extend this hotchpotch of assumptions into the search for their proof is no more scientific than the search for the Philosopher's Stone was!

While it's not new to charge psychology or branches of psychology as unscientific, the mere presence of assumptions does not exclude a discipline from being a scientific one. Cognitive Psychology, for instance, involves extensive data-gathering, methodologies, analysis, and data, but the (until recently) dominant approach in cog psych, the information-processing approach, is based on several assumptions (I quote from Cognitive Psychology: A student's handbook (2005) by Eysenck, M. W. & Keane, M. T.):

"Information made available by the environment is processed by a series of processing systems.

These processing systems transform or alter the information in various systematic ways

The major goal of research is to specify the processes and structures that underlie cognitive performance.

Information processing in people resembles that in computers."

I'm not sure exactly what distinguishes a science from a non-science, but the presence of assumptions does not automatically disqualify a discipline from being classified a science instead of, say, an art or pursuit of faith (cultural psychology may well be disqualified from the latter as faith is not simply an inferior form of science)

Therefore, you need to give some justifications as to why you believe assumptions given in above definitions social psychology are not scientific assumptions.

--NZUlysses 10:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the definition that this article puts forward is to stand, it must then be qualified with a statement that Cultural Psychology is not a psychology in the sense of a science but as the pursuit of a faith. However reasonable the assumptions of that faith might appear to be, to proceed in such a way is fundamentally non-scientific. It would therefore not a part of the field of modern psychology any more than phrenology is.

The definition put forward by Triandis on the other hand, allows a valid scientific formulation for a discrete avenue of inquiry within the branch of science referred to as psychology.

It should also be remembered that popularity and progress through academia cannot be a sole arbiter of valid scientific hypothesis. Consider the key paper of Einstein's that was dismissed by Planck (see: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/21818) Hypothesis must stand or fall on merit proved by assessment against first principles.

However, this is not to say or imply in any way whatsoever that the phenomena referred to as "culture" is not a vital sphere and resource for scientific inquiry. It is almost indisputable that the centrality of work in this arena is greater to our future now than it has been at any time. It is because of this fact and not despite it that I make these comments. I hope they will be understood in this light.

LookingGlass 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You criticize cultural psychology for presupposing the existence of culture, which it then goes on to demonstrate. However, much important progress in psychology has come from investigating lay concepts and determining what empirical reality, if any, lays behind them. Researchers like Nisbett, Kitayama, and Norenzayan have demonstrated clear, reliable differences in cognition, emotion, and behavior between different groups of people. Their major argument is not about the epistemological reality of the concept of "culture," but rather that these differences exist, that they map onto the lay concept of culture, and that they have important effects. This point does not seem assailable on broad philosophical or methodological grounds. Inhumandecency 00:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your statement, the concept of culture is a very complex one and it is often ignored and not validated. Culture plays a big role in the psychology of each individual and their differences in perceiving the world. While there is a "general standard" as to what mental health is there is also an acknowledgement that culture psychology plays a big role. Karemblyvilla (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also: http://www.iaccp.org/bulletin/V34.12_2000/lonner.html Triandis, H. C. (1980). ) (Ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. New York: Allyn and Bacon.

It seems like we should try and get rid of the NPOV dispute tag on the front page. I have three possibilities that strike me as ways that could happen.

1. Honestly, it strikes me as if the complaint is based on misguided philosophy of science. All fields assume that certain concepts have some validity as a basis for explanation. Biologists doesn't start with an open mind about whether there are animals, they just take it for granted that they're there, and then go about telling us interesting things about them. Also, even if the concept of culture has been problematized in other fields, that doesn't mean the cultural psychologists haven't found a way to operationalize it and do good work with it. The real issue would be whether the cultural psychologists proceed in a way that's open to evidence, etc. So perhaps there isn't a real NPOV issue here.

2 (Probably better). We're not really here at wikipedia to decide what is a science and what isn't. So if there's real, published, credible claims that the foundations of cultural psychology are messed up, we should rewrite the article to reflect the fact that those criticisms are out there, instead of trying to adjudicate it ourselves. If those views are a consensus (which I suspect is unlikely, based on my minimal knowledge), we should write that into the article as well. JustinBlank (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the whole concept of studying culture in this way may seem ridiculous, but this is exactly the way my Cultural Psych teacher is teaching it. Personally, I'm confused. To solve a problem or test a hypothesis you always start with basic assumptions so that your problem is simplified. This branch of Psychology seems to forego the whole scientific method by never assuming anything and never concluding anything. - Nolan, Feb. 19th 2008

Firstly thank you for your responses and I am really sorry I dodn't realise that you had given them. I can't find a way to monitor wiki that is sustainable for me. Secondly I feel there is considerable confusion over the point I was making. Entirely my fault. Thirdly I don't think I have time to do a better job right now (you really would forgive me for this if you knew) but I can say something at least if anyone's interested:

1. I really don't think I'm misguided about what is or isn't science. It is a truism that any investigation has to begin and therefroe that it must begin somewhere and that data cannot in any meaningful way be collected if there is not some idea of what is being collected that itself rests necessarily on a prejudgement or classification of it. So I accept entirely that assumption and supposition even can never be eliminated from any inquiry scientific or otherwise.

2. I accept entirely the assumption or concept of groupings of perceptions within an individual and across groups of individuals and that the word "culture" is as good as any to stand as a label for this. I didn't even really think of this as being an issue because I assumed it was another truism. The bottom line I would argue is that it is a statistical certainty that any natural distribution will not be even and therefroe that groupings will be evident. It is also a mathematical truism that there is a self defining and increasing force that acts on such groupings. I'll find the ref if I can, it's somewhere on my hard drive. It's a mathematical investigation into the "creation" of racial etc ghettoes. Of course I can see, and have the bruises to show, for very real experience of cultural difference gained from experience of "similar" cultures not classically different ones.

3. I must try harder! Perhaps we should use some more examples in this discussion or perhaps that would confuse things further. Hofstede is a prime example of poor science or even non-science.

4. What I was trying to say with regard to "culture" is that it is assumed to be coincident with "nation" and that it is also seen as being something fundamentally big. I think that both of these assumptions have no grounding in reality and that this can be shown very easily. However that does not mean to say that the study of large groupings should not be made. What it does say is that such investigations should accept and respect the boundaries they are fdreating and not be blinded by th attraction of the simplistic and obvious. As a Granny Weatherwax remarked: "Just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's true.".

5. Perhaps the only thing that will cut through all this clutter is an alternative model. perhaps fractal geometry, chaos theory and systems thinking (that phrase MUST be replaced!!) offer useful conceptual structures for investigations.

6. Can I have another go at explaining the problem with the article? If so I can't do ity right now.

Apologies also if anyone's tried to contact me via email. Footard.com seems to have disappeared without trace :( And could we continue this discussion as a thread rather than inserting comments? I find it a lot easier if sentences and comments don't become separated. Thanks.

LookingGlass (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from restoftheworld:
I entirely agree with the rebuttal against the original dispute and the argument that the NPOV tag should not have been on the front page in the first place, given the weakness of the dispute. I also agree that the disputer's view of science is misguided. What is scientific about modern psychology is the process, not the content. That is, as long as psychological theories (i.e., the content) are testable, and more importantly, capable of being disproven (i.e., a clear null hypothesis can be identified), it is perfectly reasonable to make use of concepts that are sustained by evidence. Cultural psychology has become part of mainstream psychology by now because in the last two decades or so, it has systematically tested its assumptions and theories against evidence, most convincingly through experimentation. This includes the idea that humans are not only social animals but also cultural animals. If the concept of "cultural" is problematic, isn't the concept of "social" equally problematic? Furthermore, the original dispute seems to specifically target the definition of cultural psychology. There is actually more than one definition of cultural psychology, and one of the most commonly cited definitions is one by Richard Shweder who defines cultural psychology as the study of how the mind and culture mutually constitute and shape each other. Would this definition be more acceptable to the disputer? Besides, what is the point of disputing the goals of a scholarly discipline if the discipline is being productive in producing knowledge? Finally, I would like to add that I agree with Triandis that cultural psychologists study two cultures at a time whereas cross-cultural psychologists can study many cultures. I would add that the additional difference between cultural psychology and cross-cultural psychology is that the former requires expertise on the cultural meanings, practices, and institutions of the cultures that are studied while the latter does not. That is why cultural psychologists are limited to comparing cultures that they know something about while cross-cultural psychologists can compare many cultures on psychological concepts that are supposedly equally meaningful across different cultural and historical contexts. If the concept of culture can't be taken at face value, then knowledge about different cultures should be disputed too. If that knowledge is disputed, shouldn't the goals of anthropology, sociology, history, and cultural geography also be in dispute? I believe that this NPOV is really addressing a non-issue. While we are having this petty debate, one thing that is not in dispute for sure is the enormous contribution that cultural psychologists have already made and will continue to make to the field of psychology and to the understanding of human nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.31.54 (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are missing

there are inline citations to sources that are not in the reflist. Does anyone have a clue what Cole 1996 or Turiel might be? 88.114.154.216 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the Cole reference: Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. According to Michael Cole's vita (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/MCole/Vita10.pdf), it's the only publication for that year in which he was the sole author and the piece was a stand-alone publication, as opposed to journal articles or book chapters in a compilation. Finelinebob (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I should also add that the book I cited above fits well with the description of being a "classic text" in cultural psychology, the context in which Cole's work was cited in the article. Finelinebob (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the fourth "I" culture cycle?

The fourth "I" cycle is Idea, I just added the final cycle based on the book referenced at the beginning of the cycle Jkb131 (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cultural psychology/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I do not see how the entry could purport to cover cultural psychology without including the vast literature from Vygotsky to various figures like Cole and Rogoff.

Last edited at 14:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 12:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cultural psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added new section on Culture and motivation

Hey everyone, I added a new subsection titled Culture and motivation mainly highlighting the distinction between self-enhancement and self-improvement between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. My main sources (5) were from journal articles concluding that self-esteem is not a universal concept and is often adopted by western individualistic cultures. What do you think?

I was also thinking of adding another section to the Culture and motivation subsection regarding promotion vs. prevention orientation- strategies adopted by individualistic and collectivistic cultures in terms of seeking positive validation vs. preventing weaknesses.Yoyomama123 (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The history

I recently wrote the section on the history of this subdiscipline. I gives a rough sketch of some of the major developments of the tradition and the later movement, but it still lacks a more contextual approach. More detail should be given as to why these developments arouse and in which social contexts they took place. For example, why was there a turn to culture during the Romantic period?

I think the sources I used are of a good overall quality. What could be improved here might be to incorporate some primary sources in the form of quotes complemented by secondary sources that deal specifically with that subject. This would probably emerge naturally from taken a deeper look into the social historical context I mentioned earlier.

These are just some thoughts for further directions.

REGIW (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]