Seligman (2011) described well-being as the psychological construct that involves engaging with life, experiencing meaningful/positive relationships, having a sense of life purpose, feeling positive emotions, and embracing opportunities for experiencing a sense of accomplishment. Reference: Bates, W. (2011). Flourish A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being by Martin E. P. Seligman [Book review]. Policy, 27(3), 60–61. Business Source Complete Database (Accession No 66835840). https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=66835840&site=eds-live&scope=site Think about the psychology of personality research topic on well-being that interests you. Consider the following as you research and choose your topic:
Post 2-3 topics related to well-being that you would be interested in learning more about. Connect these topics to one or more personality theories. Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2019). Personality: Theory and research (14th ed.). Wiley.
lieve that people of various cultures are more similar than different. As Helgeson (2012) articulates regarding the issue of gender differences, “most of us have two eyes, two arms, two legs; a heart, lungs, and vocal chords . . . The same logic applies to cognitive and social domains” (p. 103). Sim- ilarly, Myers (2005) draws from G. K. Ches- terton’s observations—“When someone has ‘discovered why men in Bond Street wear black hats he will at the same moment have discovered why men in Timbuctoo wear red feathers’” (Myers, 2005, p. 180)—to expli- cate the universality of fundamental psycho- logical processes. Although such nomothetic propositions are often drowned by loud pro- tests directed against the ethnocentrism of mainstream psychology, we must neverthe- less reiterate that the contributions of psy- chologists from all the different camps are essential in order to weave a truly coherent and meaningful fabric of human behavior.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2000). Autism: Deficits in folk psychology exist alongside superiority in folk physics. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flus- berg, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other minds: Perspectives from autism and develop- mental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed., pp. 73– 82). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bhagat, C. (2014, July 17). Bestselling English author: I write about an India that the West is not interested in. The Huffington Post. Re- trieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ chetan-bhagat/bestselling-english-author_b_ 5575570.html?ir�India
Christopher, J. C., Wendt, D. C., Marecek, J., & Goodman, D. M. (2014). Critical cultural awareness: Contributions to a globalizing psy- chology. American Psychologist, 69, 645– 655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036851
Helgeson, V. (2012). Psychology of gender (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educa- tion.
Myers, D. G. (2005). Social psychology (8th ed.). New Delhi, India: Tata McGraw-Hill.
Rao, M. A., Berry, R., Gonsalves, A., Hastak, Y., Shah, M., & Roeser, R. W. (2013). Globalization and the identity remix among urban adolescents in India. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 9 –24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12002
Sartre, J. (1956). Being and nothingness (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). New York, NY: Washington Square Press.
Schwartz, S. H., & Sagie, G. (2000). Value con- sensus and importance: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 465– 497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220 22100031004003
Correspondence concerning this comment should be addressed to Christine N. Winston, Depart- ment of Psychology, Women’s Christian Col- lege, College Road, Chennai – 600 006, India. E-mail: [email protected]
Revisiting Cultural Awareness and Cultural Relevancy
Naji Abi-Hashem Independent Practice, Seattle, Washington
and Beirut, Lebanon
I was delighted to see the article on “Critical Cultural Awareness” in the October issue of the American Psychologist by Christopher, Wendt, Marecek, and Goodman (2014).
The more insights and exploration of the meaning and influence of culture we receive, the better. There is no single treat- ment of any personal or collective cul- ture(s) that can be inherently complete or totally exhaustive. New hermeneutics and skills are always needed, appreciated, and refreshing.
A few thousand years ago, Socrates once said, “Know Thyself.” Culturally speaking, the practice of self-awareness re- mains a desired virtue. That was true in an- cient times, and is still true today, especially when modern societies and subcultures are changing more rapidly than ever and unfold- ing faster than we can mentally adapt, so- cially digest, or emotionally process.
The concept of culture does not ap- pear to be fixed or static but is always dynamic and is ever fluid. As a Lebanese American, I continue to observe, study, and interact with so many cultures and subcultures locally and globally, espe- cially comparing the differences and sim- ilarities between the East and the West (and anything in between). I find the no- tion of culture(s) in general to be intrigu- ing and truly fascinating!
Actually, there are many layers of cultures and many spheres of world- views, even within one geographical area, urban setting, or residential loca- tion. That is also true inside the faculties of the human personality, on individual level as well. It seems there are subcul- tures within each culture, mentalities within each mentality, and worldviews within each worldview.
Furthermore, I find that cultures can- not be adequately defined or fully under- stood. They are better felt than defined and better experienced than explained (Abi- Hashem, 1997, 2014a, 2014b; Cohen, 2009). I wish sometimes that our graduate schools in psychology would require more cultural studies and anthropological train- ing to equip students for dealing with the rich and yet complex phenomena of our global-social-local-personal culture(s).
I would like to add to the well-docu- mented treatment and discussion that
Christopher et al. (2014) provided, that it is also critical to emphasize that our cultural self-awareness must be quite frequent and up-to-date. It is not a one-time procedure, examination, or discovery. The present times we live in are changing fast, deep, and strong, affecting our existential iden- tity and sense of cultural and global self (if I may use the term—as I have been trying to develop this concept recently).
That is, who are we becoming cultur- ally at this globalized, polarized, and digi- talized age? Societies are drastically vary- ing and rapidly moving, and the world’s cultures are increasingly mixing and inter- acting, more than ever. With the invasion of the Internet and its cyberspace technol- ogy into all aspects of modern life, the traditional norms, geographical boundaries, basic structures, social values, established lifestyles, and national heritages are hold- ing no more.
Virtually, any field of knowledge, discipline, or helping profession has many concepts, principles, and constructs that are universal in nature, and could apply and be understood anywhere in the world.
However, each discipline, including psychology, has many specifics and partic- ulars that are not readily applicable else- where or well suited to be used outside their place of origin. These are solely local and provisional, relevant only to the imme- diate context where they are designed, for- mulated, and produced. They usually make sense inside (not outside) their cultural contours. But if they were to be introduced or applied elsewhere, nearby or faraway, they will need serious screening, trimming, and adaptation, as well as thoughtful revi- sions, modifications, and alterations. Oth- erwise, they will remain foreign and un- suitable to the population in mind, which could be a special target audience, a minor- ity group, a local community, or even an- other society or a different nation.
In addition, each discipline has some aspects, theories, tools, and assumptions that are counterculture in nature and will eventually cause confusion, if not harm, when they are applied blindly and without any discernment. These are totally irrele- vant and need to be omitted all together (cf. Abi-Hashem, 2014b).
How do we know the difference be- tween what is cultural-normal-natural and what is clinical-abnormal-unnatural, especially when we work cross-culturally or transnationally? The answer is by ex- perience and by allowing ourselves to be coached and trained by local educators and caregivers. They are the indigenous experts who know enough about their own settings and mentalities and some-
660 October 2015 ● American Psychologist
thing about ours (and where we come from and how we operate). Otherwise, good intentions and self-confidence on the part of the visiting professionals are not enough.
I personally spend several months a year in Beirut, Lebanon, focusing on community service, teaching, counseling, training, crisis intervention, and trauma debriefing among various Middle East- erner populations and refugees living there, as well as interacting with profes- sionals and educators on various levels. I have experimented with many concepts, approaches, themes, and techniques widely practiced in North America, only to find that some of them were ineffective and questionable.
While the more generic principles and universal methods work nicely across the board and people relate and respond well to them, other notions, approaches, and interventions remain very awkward and foreign. They appear to be counterpro- ductive and unfortunately do complicate the relationships as well as the outcomes. Some actually have negative side-effects! Like suggesting a strict separation-individ- uation process, or a sharp drawing of per- sonal boundaries on the expense of alien- ating family and friends and other essential community bonding; or encouraging rigid privacy, impersonal autonomy, and total self-reliance, thus glorifying I-me-myself on the expense of we-us-together. This can destroy the fabric of communal harmony and intimate-collaborative beauty of many families, groups, communities, and societ- ies, because individuals have full meaning and clear identity only in relationship to significant others, in a fluid interdepen- dence and interconnectedness (rather than floating alone). Another example would be the open expression of anger and resent- ment. To encourage a quick verbalization of anger and hate is very foreign and shameful in many subcultures, e.g., “I hate my mother,” “I am angry at my father (or spouse),” or pushing the person to directly express and confront others publicly, as if to rub anger in their face. Indirect ways of describing and expressing negative emo- tions are more common in many traditions. Therefore, helping-professionals ought to be very careful and very patient with them- selves and with those they attempt to serve, either across the street, across the border, or across the ocean.
In the Arabic language, there is no single term or word to describe the Eng- lish parallel of “culture.” Rather, several terms are used, at times, to convey the meaning of culture and to capture its overall essence, like, Hadaarah (civiliza-
tion), Thihneyyah (mentality), Thakaafah (educational civility), and Turaath (liv- ing tradition).
Finally, as we strive toward a better contextualization and a healthy internation- alization of all social sciences, in general, and the psychological concepts, tools, methods, and therapeutic skills, in particu- lar, let us do these with full hermeneutic integrity, professional sensitivity, and cul- tural humility. Surely, the results will be more effective, the experiences more meaningful, and the newfound relation- ships more rewarding.
Abi-Hashem, N. (1997). Reflections on “Inter- national perspectives in psychology.” Ameri- can Psychologist, 52, 569 –570. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.569.b
Abi-Hashem, N. (2014a). Worldview. In D. A. Leeming (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology and religion (2nd ed., pp. 1938 –1941). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4614-6086-2_9357
Abi-Hashem, N. (2014b). Cross-cultural psy- chology and counseling: A Middle Eastern perspective. Journal of Psychology and Chris- tianity, 33, 156 –163.
Christopher, J. C., Wendt, D. C., Marecek, J., & Goodman, D. M. (2014). Critical cultural awareness: Contributions to a globalizing psy- chology. American Psychologist, 69, 645– 655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036851
Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64, 194 –204. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015308
Correspondence concerning this comment should be addressed to Naji Abi-Hashem, 14054 Wallingford Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98133. E-mail: [email protected]
Cultural Humility: The Cornerstone of Positive
Contact With Culturally Different Individuals and
Joshua N. Hook and C. Edward Watkins Jr. University of North Texas
Increased globalization has resulted in in- creased connections between different kinds of individuals and groups, in a sense “flattening” the world (Friedman, 2007). Psychologists have been influenced by this increased globalization and, with far greater frequency than ever before, now engage with individuals and groups from a host of different nations and cultures. But
increased contact alone does not necessar- ily undo the parochialism and ethnocen- trism of psychology in the United States. As noted by Christopher, Wendt, Marecek, and Goodman (2014), “U.S. psychology remains not only overwhelmingly U.S.- centric but also largely unaware of how its cultural roots shape theory and research” (Christopher et al., 2014, p. 645). Their case example about the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Sri Lanka loudly and clearly reflects that reality— demonstrating how failure to incorporate cultural consider- ations into helping strategies can result in wasted efforts and even bring harm to the very people that we are attempting to aid. It indeed appears that the way in which psy- chologists engage with culturally different individuals and groups can still be a serious problem in the delivery of competent psy- chological services.
But why? Why is it that many psy- chologists— despite such increasingly di- versifying opportunities for cultural con- tact, despite being trained and steeped in the values of multiculturalism, and despite being designated as leaders in promoting multiculturalism and positive cultural en- gagement— continue to seemingly struggle to positively engage with culturally differ- ent individuals and groups? And how is it that large failures, such as the response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, could hap- pen but a decade ago and could perhaps still happen again now? From our perspec- tive, answers to those questions can be found in what may well be the very foun- dational cornerstone of any and all cultural contact: cultural humility. Although a more commonly used concept in family medi- cine (Falicov, 2014), cultural humility —an important component of multicultural com- petence and multicultural orientation— has recently begun to gain increasing traction as a vital explanatory construct and prac- tice-crucial variable in psychological ser- vice provision (e.g., Falicov, 2014; Hook, Davis, Owen, Worthington, & Utsey, 2013; Owen, 2013). Intrapersonally, cultural hu- mility involves a willingness and openness to reflect on one’s own self as an embedded cultural being, having an awareness of per- sonal limitations in understanding the cul- tural background and viewpoints of others; interpersonally, cultural humility involves an other-oriented stance (or openness to the other) with regard to aspects of an individ- ual’s or group’s cultural background and identity. Some of the core features of a culturally humble stance have been empir- ically identified as being respectful and considerate of the other; being genuinely interested in, open to exploring, and want- ing to understand the other’s perspective;
661October 2015 ● American Psychologist
research design one uses (longitudinal, cross- sectional, experimental, quasi-experimental, etc). It does not depend on the sample (e.g., American or Nigerian). Science is charac- terized by testing and falsifying theories (Meehl, 1978).
In light of this philosophy, it is unclear why research on cultural context should be considered more scientifically progressive than research on basic processes. In fact, Ar- nett’s (2008) description of cultural research raises concerns that it could actually slow progress in psychology. His vision of cultural psychology does not invoke theory or the importance of having testable hypotheses. Rather, cultural psychology appears to be ex- ploratory and descriptive in nature. Will cul- tural psychology simply be an anecdotal record of cultural differences or a collection of replication studies? Will 100% of the world’s population have to be studied before psychology can be considered a “complete science?” Arnett failed to provide any infor- mation about how cultural psychology will progress as a science.
From a philosophy of science perspec- tive, Arnett’s (2008) distinction between cul- tural context and basic processes is a false dichotomy. The problem with human psy- chology is not its focus on basic processes rather than cultural context; it is the lack of strong falsifiable theories (Meehl, 1978). Cultural context cannot exist in a vacuum isolated from basic processes such as cogni- tion, perception, language, and so forth. If cultural research is to take hold in psychol- ogy, then it must be theory driven and inte- grated into work on basic processes. It is not enough to surmise that different cultures may lead to different outcomes. Researchers need to specify the conditions for when they would and would not expect culture to affect basic processes and behaviors.
Cultural context can serve an important purpose in psychological science: It will en- able us to test hypotheses about which fea- tures of human behavior are acquired through experience and which are basic (or innate). Basic processes are mechanisms via which humans—and other animals—are able to re- spond adaptively to typical environments; however, these processes can be distin- guished from another kind of adaptation, ac- quired associations or strategies (such as reading), which vary across situations and cultures. Within this framework, cultural ad- aptations can be thought to arise from the operation of basic processes, such as learn- ing.4 For example, at one time it was thought that language was acquired solely through imitation of and reinforcement by models within one’s sociocultural context (e.g., Skin- ner’s, 1957, Verbal Behavior), until Chom- sky’s synthesis of cross-cultural linguistic
variation revealed important similarities across cultures, suggesting that language ac- quisition also depends on a more basic struc- ture or process that all humans share. Simi- larly, conventional wisdom suggests that abstract mathematical concepts are learned through years of formal education and train- ing; however, studies of hunter-gatherer cul- tures (e.g., the Pirahã; Gordon, 2004) and even of nonhuman animals (e.g., monkeys, rats, pigeons; Gallistel & Gelman, 2000) have shown that we all share a common system for representing the abstract concept of number. In clinical psychology, many as- sume that eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa share a common genetic etiology. However, recent research suggests that the genetic diathesis for bulimia nervosa may exhibit greater pathoplasticity cross-culturally than the diathesis for an- orexia nervosa; this finding indicates distinct etiologies for these disorders (Keel & Klump, 2003). These examples highlight the impor- tance of using cultural context to test theories about basic and acquired human behavior.
Focusing on cultural context rather than basic processes is not going to advance American psychology, or psychology in general. Neither are having students travel abroad or take anthropology classes (as recommended by Arnett), in and of them- selves. Rather, science will advance by de- veloping and testing theories. We believe that psychological science can benefit most by using differences in culture and context to develop and test novel hypotheses about basic human processes.
4 Note that this formulation of the purpose of cross-cultural psychology differs markedly from Arnett’s (2008), which espouses cultural representativeness as a goal unto itself.
Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality? Current Direc- tions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9.
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602– 614.
Banks, M. S., Aslin, R. N., & Letson, R. D. (1975, November 14). Sensitive period for the development of human binocular vision. Sci- ence, 190, 675– 677.
Davis, M., Myers, K. M., Ressler, K. J., & Roth- baum, B. O. (2005). Facilitation of extinction of conditioned fear by D-cycloserine: Impli- cations for psychotherapy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 214 –219.
Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (2000). Non-verbal numerical cognition: From reals to integers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 59 – 65.
Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496 – 499.
Keel, K. K., & Klump, K. L. (2003). Are eating disorders culturally bound syndromes? Impli- cations for conceptualizing their etiology. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 747–769.
Meaney, M. J. (2001). Maternal care, gene ex- pression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across genera- tions. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 1161–1192.
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consult- ing and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806 – 834.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Stanovich, K. E. (2007). How to think straight about psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
Correspondence concerning this comment should be addressed to Gerald J. Haeffel, De- partment of Psychology, 108 Haggar Hall, Uni- versity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. E-mail: [email protected]
The Neglected 95%, a Challenge to Psychology’s
Philosophy of Science
Jeffrey Jensen Arnett Clark University
My goal in writing “The Neglected 95%: Why American Psychology Needs to Be- come Less American” (Arnett, October 2008) was to fuel a conversation in psy- chology about whether American psycho- logical research should become more re- flective of how human beings in different cultures around the world experience their lives. I am pleased to see that many of my colleagues have taken up this conversation, as represented in the four comments Amer- ican Psychologist is publishing in this is- sue. The four comments were well chosen in that they represent quite different reac- tions to my article. Two of the comments were generally in support of my thesis that American psychology is too narrow cultur- ally, and sought to provide additional in- formation on the issues I raised. The other two comments were in opposition to my thesis and presented the grounds for their
571September 2009 ● American Psychologist
opposition. In this rejoinder I address the issues raised in each of the comments, first the two supporting comments and then the two opposing comments. Following this, I address the more general problem that cuts across the comments: American psychol- ogy’s dominant philosophy of science.
Strategies—and a Caveat—for Reaching the Neglected 95%
LoSchiavo and Shatz (2009, this issue) agreed that my analysis of articles pub- lished in APA journals shows that Ameri- can researchers in psychology have fo- cused too narrowly on Americans while neglecting the other 95% of the world’s population. However, they placed the ori- gin of the problem not mainly on a mis- guided philosophy of science, as I did (Arnett, 2008), but on practical issues, spe- cifically “a lack of viable options for con- ducting research with international sam- ples” (LoSchiavo & Shatz, 2009, p. 566). To remedy this problem they suggested the creation of a centralized network of multi- national field sites “so that researchers can partner with international colleagues and collect data from samples that better reflect the whole of humanity” (p. 566). They also recommended increased use of Web-based research methods, which could make it possible to involve colleagues and research participants around the world without the expense and logistical trouble of interna- tional travel.
I support these suggestions. However, I would only raise the caution that multi- national studies would have to be based on diverse culturally grounded theoretical per- spectives and methods in order to be suc- cessful in addressing the problems I de- scribed in my article. For example, it would be a mistake to believe that taking Ameri- can-based questionnaires and using them in 10 different countries would be an ade- quate way of representing the cultural con- texts of all 10 countries. Questionnaires are laden with cultural assumptions, in the items chosen and the response options offered, so the methods used would have to be adapted to the range of cultural contexts involved, even if doing so would make it more difficult to compare the samples. Similarly, it would be pointless to use the same experimental laboratory methods in 10 different countries. If experimental laboratory methods strip away cultural context in one country, they will do so in other countries as well. What needs to change is not just the cultural range of samples used in psychology but the dom- inant philosophy of science.
Is American Psychology Already Becoming More International?
Like LoSchiavo and Shatz (2009), Web- ster, Nichols, and Schember (2009, this issue) agreed with the thesis of my article. However, their appraisal of American psy- chology’s current international representa- tion was more favorable than mine. They conducted a journal analysis to supplement the one I presented and concluded that “substantial progress has been made over the last 30 years” (Webster et al., 2009, p. 566) in APA journals, toward representing a broader portion of humanity.
Their analysis included three journals that mine did not—Journal of Experimen- tal Psychology: General (JEP: General), Psychological Bulletin, and Psychological Review—and they excluded two journals that had been part of my analysis, Health Psychology and Family Psychology. My analysis was over 20 years in 5-year incre- ments; their analysis went back 30 years in 10-year increments. Furthermore, they an- alyzed national institutional affiliations of editors, associate editors, and consulting editors across five time points from 1980 to 2008. In contrast, my analysis of APA’s editorial representation was for only one year, 2007. This is an impressive analysis that Webster et al. (2009) have conducted, with admirable swif
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.
Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.
2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.
3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.