Cross-Cultural Psychology




Cross-Cultural Psychology Definition

Cross-cultural psychology involves the systematic examination of behavior and experiences within various cultural contexts. It encompasses the study of how culture influences behavior and how behaviors can lead to cultural changes (Triandis, 1980, p. 1). This comprehensive definition encompasses both contemporary cross-cultural psychology and cultural psychology.

Contemporary cross-cultural psychology explores psychological phenomena across multiple cultures, aiming to measure psychological constructs consistently across diverse cultural groups. Ideally, research in this field employs instruments with equivalent meaning in cultures spanning the globe, facilitating the establishment of the universality of psychological findings. Its theoretical framework operates under the assumption of universalism, emphasizing the common psychological attributes shared by all humans.Cross-Cultural Psychology

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% OFF with 24START discount code


In contrast, cultural psychology adopts a relativistic perspective, delving into the mutual interaction between culture and psychological phenomena. This approach focuses on the in-depth examination of a single culture at a time, seeking to understand how cultural context shapes and modifies psychological processes. It does not necessarily endorse the concept of psychic unity among humankind (Shweder, 1990).

Cultural psychology comprises various branches, including those led by notable scholars such as Boesch, Bruner, Cole, Greenfield, Rogoff, Shweder, and Valsiner. Indigenous psychologies are closely related to cultural psychology, emphasizing the elucidation of the meanings behind culture-specific concepts. For instance, philotimo in Greece signifies conforming to in-group expectations, while amae in Japan denotes expecting significant indulgence from highly interdependent individuals.

Moreover, ethnic and indigenous psychologies have been developed for specific cultural contexts, such as Mexico by Diaz-Guerrero, India by Sinha, the Philippines by Enriquez, Taiwan by Yang, and mainland China (Kim & Berry, 1993). These specialized fields further contribute to our understanding of how cultural factors shape human psychology.

Cross-Cultural Psychology Theories and Methods of Study

The quest for understanding the psychological dynamics within diverse cultural and ethnic groups has been a persistent theme in the history of cross-cultural psychology. This theme has woven its way through the discipline like an enduring thread. One particular tradition traces its roots to Waitz’s concept of the “psychic unity of mankind,” asserting that the fundamental essence of the human psyche remains largely consistent across cultures. This tradition harks back to the European Enlightenment period of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, during which influential philosophers like Hume and Kant stressed the essential similarities in human behavior across different eras and cultures. They underscored the importance of cross-cultural research in identifying the governing principles of this universality.

However, the Romantic reaction against Enlightenment ideals, as expressed through the works of Rousseau, Herder, and others, emphasized vast discrepancies in the psychological functioning of distinct cultural populations. These perspectives underscored that any attempt to compare cultures would inevitably touch upon peripheral aspects of psychological functioning. This alternative tradition adopts a noncomparative stance and advocates for understanding cultures “from within.”

Throughout the history of cross-cultural psychology, the debate between these two approaches has resurfaced in various forms. This dichotomy has been framed as universalism versus cultural relativism, cross-cultural versus cultural psychology, and etic versus emic approaches (the latter terminology drawing inspiration from linguist Kenneth Pike’s distinctions). Similar dichotomies, rooted in the comparative versus noncomparative perspectives, can also be found in anthropology and mainstream psychology, where the nomothetic and ideographic approaches echo these historical debates.

Goals of the Study of Cultural Factors in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Cross-Cultural Psychology

Three distinct objectives emerge when considering both comparative and noncomparative approaches in psychological research:

  1. Assessing the Relevance of Western Theories and Measures in Non-Western Settings:
    • One primary goal involves evaluating the applicability of predominantly Western theories and measurement tools within non-Western contexts. Researchers seek to determine whether theories and instruments developed in Western countries hold true and are useful in diverse cultural settings.
  2. Investigating the Impact of Cultural Factors:
    • Another objective centers on exploring the influence of cultural factors by expanding the scope of cultural variables under examination. Researchers aim to broaden the understanding of how cultural context impacts various aspects of human behavior and cognition.
  3. Integrating Culture into Psychological Theories and Measures:
    • The third goal revolves around incorporating culture into psychological theories and measurement tools, with the intention of contributing to a more universally applicable psychology. Researchers strive to develop frameworks and instruments that can account for cultural diversity while maintaining a broader relevance.

These objectives follow an implicit temporal progression. As of now, cross-cultural psychology has made significant strides towards achieving the first goal. Various psychological domains, including intelligence, personality, and social behavior, have been studied in cross-cultural contexts. These studies have consistently revealed that instruments originating in Western societies are susceptible to biases, with the susceptibility increasing as the cultural distance between the instrument’s creators and the examinees grows.

The second goal has also received considerable attention in research, particularly within social psychology. Numerous examples demonstrate the profound and often overlooked influence of cultural context on social-psychological processes. These pervasive cross-cultural differences in the social-psychological realm have contributed to the popularity of this aspect in cross-cultural psychology.

One noteworthy example of research aimed at the second goal is the work by Segall, Campbell, and Herskovits (1966) on illusion susceptibility. Their extensive cross-cultural study showed a positive correlation between illusion susceptibility and the presence of geometric shapes like rectangles and squares in the built environment and the visibility of the natural landscape.

Additionally, researchers frequently employ the ecocultural framework to connect psychological aspects to environmental features. This approach has been particularly valuable in studying food-gathering styles, with a focus on the contrast between nomadic hunting and food-gathering societies in sparsely populated regions versus sedentary agriculturalists in densely populated areas. Such investigations have explored various psychological differences between these societies, including child-rearing practices and cognitive styles.

Three distinct objectives emerge when considering both comparative and noncomparative approaches in psychological research:

  1. Assessing the Relevance of Western Theories and Measures in Non-Western Settings:
    • One primary goal involves evaluating the applicability of predominantly Western theories and measurement tools within non-Western contexts. Researchers seek to determine whether theories and instruments developed in Western countries hold true and are useful in diverse cultural settings.
  2. Investigating the Impact of Cultural Factors:
    • Another objective centers on exploring the influence of cultural factors by expanding the scope of cultural variables under examination. Researchers aim to broaden the understanding of how cultural context impacts various aspects of human behavior and cognition.
  3. Integrating Culture into Psychological Theories and Measures:
    • The third goal revolves around incorporating culture into psychological theories and measurement tools, with the intention of contributing to a more universally applicable psychology. Researchers strive to develop frameworks and instruments that can account for cultural diversity while maintaining a broader relevance.

These objectives follow an implicit temporal progression. As of now, cross-cultural psychology has made significant strides towards achieving the first goal. Various psychological domains, including intelligence, personality, and social behavior, have been studied in cross-cultural contexts. These studies have consistently revealed that instruments originating in Western societies are susceptible to biases, with the susceptibility increasing as the cultural distance between the instrument’s creators and the examinees grows.

The second goal has also received considerable attention in research, particularly within social psychology. Numerous examples demonstrate the profound and often overlooked influence of cultural context on social-psychological processes. These pervasive cross-cultural differences in the social-psychological realm have contributed to the popularity of this aspect in cross-cultural psychology.

One noteworthy example of research aimed at the second goal is the work by Segall, Campbell, and Herskovits (1966) on illusion susceptibility. Their extensive cross-cultural study showed a positive correlation between illusion susceptibility and the presence of geometric shapes like rectangles and squares in the built environment and the visibility of the natural landscape.

Additionally, researchers frequently employ the ecocultural framework to connect psychological aspects to environmental features. This approach has been particularly valuable in studying food-gathering styles, with a focus on the contrast between nomadic hunting and food-gathering societies in sparsely populated regions versus sedentary agriculturalists in densely populated areas. Such investigations have explored various psychological differences between these societies, including child-rearing practices and cognitive styles.

Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology

The bulk of knowledge in the field of cross-cultural psychology is centered around assessing the suitability of Western theories and measurements in non-Western contexts. In these studies, specific methodological considerations come into play. Hence, it’s not surprising that cross-cultural psychology is often characterized as a methodology in itself. A prime example of such a concern pertains to the selection of participants within cultural populations. While anthropologists can typically rely on a small group of informants who, due to their expertise, possess valuable access to the cultural knowledge of interest (such as the indigenous categorization of a particular flora), cross-cultural psychologists frequently deal with psychological traits that exhibit significant variation among members of a population. The method of sampling employed in such cases directly influences the interpretability of the findings. Comparing two randomly selected samples may lead to interpretation challenges: Is the observed difference in psychological functioning (e.g., in terms of locus of control) a result of underlying cultural distinctions or the result of differences in relevant, albeit uncontrolled, background factors like socioeconomic status, gender, or education?

Three commonly used sampling methods represent distinct approaches to addressing confounding variables. The first is random or probability sampling, which assumes a list of eligible units (e.g., individuals or households) and yields a comprehensive representation of the cultural population. However, this approach does not control for confounding variables, potentially complicating the interpretation of cross-cultural disparities.

The second method involves matched sampling. Here, the population is divided into strata (e.g., based on educational levels or socioeconomic status), and a random sample is drawn from each stratum. Through a matching process, confounding variables can be controlled to some extent, although this approach may not effectively represent the entire population. This limitation can be mitigated by applying statistical weights to individual scores, especially when there is an overrepresentation of highly educated individuals in the sample. Matching is suitable when cultural groups share some similarity in confounding variables, but it may struggle to correct adequately for such variables when there is little or no overlap across cultures, as in comparisons of literate and illiterate populations.

The third sampling approach combines random sampling with the measurement of control variables, enabling post hoc statistical control of ambient variables. The applicability of this method hinges on the assumptions of the statistical technique used; for example, an analysis of covariance assumes equal regression coefficients for confounding variables in predicting a target variable.

Cross-cultural studies also encounter the challenge of sampling cultures, with three possible approaches. The first is random sampling, which is often constrained by the prohibitive cost of obtaining a random sample from all existing cultures, resulting in a selection of specific groups of cultures (e.g., Circummediterranean cultures). The second and most commonly used approach is convenience sampling, where culture selection is influenced by factors such as availability and cost-efficiency. In many studies, researchers from different countries collaborate, each collecting data in their respective nation. The third type is systematic sampling, where a culture is intentionally chosen based on specific characteristics, as seen in Segall, Campbell, and Herskovits’s (1966) study, where cultures were selected based on ecological features like the openness of the landscape.

Extensive experience adapting Western instruments for use in non-Western settings has resulted in a set of key concepts and recommended practices. Central concepts include bias and (in)equivalence. Bias refers to the presence of elements within a test or inventory that threaten its validity, such as inappropriate items. A stimulus is considered biased if it lacks the same psychological meaning across the cultures under examination. For instance, the endorsement of an item like “[I] watched more television than usual,” which is part of a standard coping list, may depend on factors like the availability of electricity and television sets, among others. Equivalence, on the other hand, pertains to the implications of bias for the comparability of scores across cultures.

Multilingual Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Cross-cultural investigations often involve multiple languages, and established guidelines for the translation and adaptation of instruments have been developed. During the adaptation process, one or more components of an instrument are modified to enhance its appropriateness for a specific target group. In many multilingual studies, existing instruments are utilized. The typical procedure entails a translation, followed by an independent back-translation, and a thorough comparison of the original and back-translated versions. This may be followed by adjustments to the translation as needed. Back-translations serve as a potent tool for aligning the original and translated versions independently of the researcher’s familiarity with the target language. However, they do not address all challenges.

The first challenge pertains to literal reproduction. Relying heavily on back-translations can result in stilted language in the target version, which may lack the natural fluency and readability of the original.

The second issue involves translatability. Idioms (e.g., “feeling blue” in English), references to culture-specific elements (e.g., country-specific holidays), or other features that cannot be effectively conveyed in the target language pose difficulties for translation-back-translation processes (as well as for all studies involving the translation of existing instruments). When versions in multiple languages can be developed simultaneously, a technique called “decentering” is employed. In decentering, no single language or culture serves as the starting point; instead, individuals from different cultures collaborate in developing the instrument, significantly reducing the risk of introducing unintended references to a specific culture.

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition that translations and adaptations necessitate the collective expertise of psychologists (with expertise in the studied construct) and specialists familiar with the local language and culture of the target population(s). This collaborative approach, often referred to as the “committee approach,” brings together the knowledge and skills of all relevant disciplines. Typically, formal accuracy checks of the translation are not conducted in the committee approach. This method is widely utilized by large international organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union when translating texts into multiple languages.

The process of translating and adapting instruments for cross-cultural studies is a complex endeavor that requires careful consideration of linguistic, cultural, and psychological factors. Beyond the translation of words, it involves capturing the essence and meaning of psychological constructs in a way that is relevant and culturally sensitive to the target population. Here, we delve further into the challenges and nuances of this critical process.

1. Cultural Nuances: One of the most intricate aspects of translating instruments lies in accounting for cultural nuances and context. Certain psychological concepts may not have direct equivalents in another culture, making it essential to find culturally relevant ways to express them. This process demands a deep understanding of the cultural norms, values, and beliefs that shape individuals’ perceptions and responses. The committee approach, which involves experts from both psychology and the target culture, is invaluable in ensuring that these nuances are accurately captured.

2. Idioms and Expressions: Idiomatic expressions and culturally specific references are known to pose significant challenges during translation. As languages evolve, they develop unique idioms that may not have parallels in other languages. Similarly, references to local customs, traditions, or historical events may be difficult to translate without losing their intended meaning. Translators and committees must carefully consider how to convey these nuances effectively without distorting the instrument’s intended message.

3. Conceptual Equivalence: Achieving conceptual equivalence between the original and translated versions of an instrument is a fundamental goal. This means that the translated instrument should measure the same underlying psychological constructs as the original. Ensuring conceptual equivalence often requires adapting the wording, format, or even the entire structure of the instrument to align with the target culture’s understanding of the concepts being measured.

4. Bias and Cultural Sensitivity: Avoiding bias in translations is crucial. Translators must be vigilant about inadvertently introducing cultural biases or favoring one cultural group over another. This can be particularly challenging when translating instruments that were initially developed in a specific cultural context. The committee approach can help identify and rectify potential sources of bias, ensuring that the instrument is culturally sensitive and equitable.

5. Back-Translation Limitations: While back-translation is a valuable tool for assessing the correspondence between the original and translated versions, it has its limitations. As mentioned, it can prioritize literal accuracy over natural language flow. Moreover, it may not uncover subtle cultural nuances or biases that only experts from the target culture can identify. Therefore, combining back-translation with the insights of cultural experts is often necessary for a comprehensive evaluation.

6. Ethical Considerations: In cross-cultural research, ethical considerations play a significant role in translation and adaptation. Researchers must ensure that the translated instruments are respectful of cultural norms and values, and that they do not inadvertently offend or harm participants. This necessitates a careful and ethical approach to the entire translation process.

In summary, translating and adapting instruments for cross-cultural studies is a multifaceted task that demands a deep appreciation of linguistic, cultural, and psychological factors. It requires a collaborative effort involving experts from various fields to create instruments that are not only linguistically accurate but also conceptually equivalent and culturally sensitive. Ultimately, these efforts contribute to the development of a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of human psychology across diverse cultural contexts.

Individual and Country-Level Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Cross-cultural studies in psychology can encompass a wide spectrum of analyses, spanning from individual-level examinations to country-level comparisons. While the majority of research traditionally centers around individual-level studies, there has been a growing interest in exploring cross-cultural disparities at the level of entire nations. Let’s delve deeper into these two approaches.

Individual-Level Studies:

  • The majority of cross-cultural studies have historically focused on comparing psychological functioning at the individual level. This often entails investigating the cognitive development and intelligence of individuals from different cultural backgrounds.
  • In the realm of intelligence and cognitive development, factor analyses of cross-cultural applications of intellectual tasks have consistently shown support for the universality of the cognitive processes. The factor structures found in both Western and non-Western groups tend to be remarkably similar.
  • However, significant differences in average scores on intelligence tests frequently emerge across cultural groups, with individuals from Western cultures often achieving higher scores than their non-Western counterparts. These differences have sparked considerable debate and multiple hypotheses, including genetic factors, environmental influences, and measurement artifacts.
  • Piagetian theory, which examines the stages of cognitive development, has also inspired cross-cultural research. The order of these developmental stages, as posited by Piaget, appears to be universal, but the ages at which individuals reach each stage tend to vary, with greater cross-cultural divergence occurring at higher stages.
  • While the universality of the highest cognitive stage, formal-operational thinking, is contested, it is important to note that the limited applicability of formal-operational tasks in certain cultures may contribute to this observation. Ethnographic evidence from cultural anthropology, based on real-life behavioral observations, provides support for the notion of universal formal-operational thinking.

Country-Level Studies:

  • In recent years, there has been a growing interest in conducting cross-cultural studies at the country level, where entire nations are compared in terms of various psychological dimensions.
  • Such studies may examine factors like national attitudes, cultural values, or societal behaviors and their impact on psychological well-being and functioning.
  • Researchers may explore how macro-level factors such as governance, economic policies, and historical events influence the collective psychology of a nation.
  • Country-level studies can provide insights into broader cultural trends and societal dynamics, shedding light on the interplay between culture and psychology at a macroscopic level.

In summary, cross-cultural psychology encompasses investigations at both the individual and country levels. Individual-level studies often focus on cognitive development and intelligence, revealing both universal cognitive processes and differences in average scores across cultures. In contrast, country-level studies explore the collective psychology of entire nations, examining factors such as cultural values, historical events, and societal behaviors. Together, these two approaches contribute to our understanding of how culture influences psychological functioning at multiple levels of analysis.

The second line of research seeks to establish the universality or cultural specificity of certain personality traits or personality structures. Notably, Eysenck’s three-factor model of personality (comprising emotional stability, psychoticism, and extroversion) and the more recent “Big Five” model of personality (encompassing conscientiousness, neuroticism, extroversion, agreeableness, and openness) have been subjects of extensive cross-cultural investigation. These models, derived from psycholexical studies, have provided valuable insights into the structure of personality across cultures.

While both traditions have demonstrated the universality of certain personality structures among Western subjects, some non-Western studies have raised questions about the completeness of Western models of personality. For instance, a large-scale Chinese study revealed that a Western model of personality did not adequately cover aspects frequently emphasized in self-descriptions, such as “face” and “harmony.” This observation underscores a recurring theme in cross-cultural psychology: While universal aspects of psychological functioning may exist at a relatively abstract level, closer examination within a single cultural group often reveals specific nuances not encompassed by Western frameworks.

Comparisons based on country-level scores are relatively scarce, but a few substantial studies have had a significant impact on the field. One noteworthy example is the Human Relations Area Files, originally compiled in the 1960s by cultural anthropologist George Peter Murdock. This extensive database contains scores for numerous variables across hundreds of mainly non-industrial societies. Although data quality remains a challenge due to varying data sources and criteria, the sheer scale of this database has fueled ongoing research and publications.

In a more recent study, Geert Hofstede conducted a comprehensive comparison of work-related values among over 100,000 employees in IBM branches across 50 nations. He suggests that country differences in scores can be mapped along four dimensions: individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance (pertaining to the acceptance of unequal power distribution), and femininity-masculinity (concerning gender role overlap within a country).

Of particular interest in current research is the dichotomy between individualism and collectivism. This concept has roots dating back to Ferdinand Tonnies in 1887, who differentiated between Gemeinschaft (emphasizing group goals and molar bonds) and Gesellschaft (highlighting individualism and molecular interpersonal relationships). Recent studies have examined how a country’s status influences individualism or collectivism across various psychological aspects, such as personality and attitudes. Much evidence suggests that individualism has wide-ranging consequences. However, it’s important to note that many studies involve country comparisons with high gross national products, which are strongly correlated with individualism. Consequently, controlling for potential confounding factors like differences in education and income is essential in such analyses.

Another substantial project, led by Schwartz, involved surveys of teachers and college students in over 80 countries to gauge the importance of 56 values in their lives. The results revealed two key dimensions: one characterized an openness-conservatism spectrum, while the other delineated a continuum from self-enhancement (e.g., achievement and power) to self-transcendence (e.g., benevolence and wisdom). This study shed light on the variations in value orientations across cultures, providing valuable insights into the cultural dimensions of human values.

Cross-Cultural Psychology References:

  1. Amir, Y.. & Sharon, I. (1987). Are social psychological laws cross-culturally valid? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol­ogy, 18, 383-470. Provides an instructive demonstration showing that Western findings from experimental social psychology are often poorly generalizable in a different cultural context.
  2. Berry, J. W. (1976). Human ecology and cognitive style: Com­parative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Describes the influence of ecology on psychological functioning, particularly on cognitive style.
  3. Berry, J. W.. Poortinga. Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applica­tions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. A textbook at advanced level, describing major theories and models of cross-cultural research.
  4. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gives a good overview of issues in test translations as well as a set of rules to enhance translatability.
  5. Dasen, P. R. (Ed.). (1977). Piagetian psychology: Cross-cultural contributions, New York: Gardner. Summarizes the major findings of Piagetian cross-cultural studies.
  6. Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229-244. Presents an elaborate set of recommended practices in multilingual studies prepared by an international committee of psychologists. The combined efforts of psychologists and experts in the language and culture of target populations are proposed as a powerful means to safeguard accurate translations and adaptations.
  7. Hofstede, G. (198o). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, The most frequently quoted source in cross-cultural psychology, presenting a taxonomy of differences among countries in four dimensions (individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculin­ity).
  8. Jahoda, G, (1989). Our forgotten ancestors. In R. A. Dienstbier (Series Ed,) & J. J. Berman (Vol. Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation 1989: Vol. 37. Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 1-40). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Presents a short and highly readable history of the ancestors of cross-cultural and cultural psychology. with an emphasis on seventeenth- to nineteenth-century thinkers.
  9. Jahoda, G., & Krewer, B. (1997). History of cross-cultural psychology and cultural psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1-42). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Describes the intellectual roots of cross-cultural and cultural psychology.
  10. Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. A rich source of cross-cultural comparisons of mainly American groups.
  11. Kagitcibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Hand­book of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 1-49). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Presents a recent overview of individualism-collectivism studies.
  12. Lonner, W. J., & Adamopoulos, J. (1997). Culture as antecedent to behavior. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 43-83). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Summarizes the main findings of the paradigms that were most influential in cross-cultural psychology.
  13. Miller, J. G. (1997). Theoretical issues in cultural psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 85-128). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Describes theoretical issues in cultural psychology.
  14. Saxe, G. B (1991). Culture and cognitive development: Studies in mathematical understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. A good example of a the cultural-psychological approach to the study of mathematics. Both everyday and school mathematics are described and compared.
  15. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Or­lando. FL: Academic Press. Describes a presumably universal structure of human values.
  16. Segall, M. H., Campbell. D. T., & Herskovits, M. J. (1966). The influence of culture on visual perception. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. A good example of a theory that successfully models cross-cultural variations (of illusion susceptibility).
  17. Segall. M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1990). Human behavior in global perspective. New York: Pergamon Press. A basic textbook.
  18. Sinha, D. (1997). Indigenizing psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 129-169). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Provides a good overview of the indigenization movement in cross-cultural psychology.
  19. Smith. P. B.. & Bond. M. H. (1993). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. A good overview of the challenges that cross-cultural studies provide to mainstream social psychology.
  20. Stigler. J. W.. Shweder. R. A.. & Herdt. G. (Eds.). (1990). Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human devel­opment. New York: Cambridge University Press. A rich source of information about cultural psychology.
  21. Van de Vijver. F. J. R.. & Leung. K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park. CA: Sage. Presents an overview of problems and suggested solutions of cross-cultural research.