In his article, the Arnett points out that American psychology are built largely on the results of the US population studies. To prove the hypothesis, the author analyzes the main American psychological journals on psychology and the percentage of studies in the journals conducted by American researchers, European researchers and others.
However, as I believe, the author analyzing the number of articles written by American authors and authors from other countries that do not take into account the fact those American researchers in their articles, books may cite foreign authors, including data from other countries in their studies as well.
The second problem indicated by the author of the article, regarding the fact that American psychology has positioned itself as a general psychology, laws and mechanisms of which can be applied with respect to any member of humanity. However, the author recalls that the US population is an only 5% of the total world population.
Arnett indicated that if biologists study features of one particular kind of crocodile representing only 5% of total number of crocodiles, they will not insist that other kinds of crocodile have the same features as those 5% of crocodiles studied by them. So similarly, American psychologists-scientists cannot state that psychological features of American population are universal features that characterize another 95% of people who live in other countries (Arnett, 2008, p. 612).
Also, it seems that Arnett opposes two approaches with respect to psychological research: Cultural and fundamental. As I believe the study of basic psychological processes and differences determined by cultural context are not only equally important, but should complement each other.
For me the important question is how the problem described by Arnett may influence the occurrence or the solution of practical issues, problems. In other words, it is not clear whether that American psychology is "too American" is the problem that negatively affects not only the objectivity of scientific knowledge, but also practical psychological issues. In addition, it is not clear why the American psychological research journals must necessarily, according to Arnett, include articles of foreign authors. Finally, the fact that American psychological research journals have a deficit of foreign authors’ studies does not mean that scientists-psychologists in the United States do not have access to foreign publications and researches. What is the problem if Asian countries will conduct study regarding the psychology of representatives of their cultures, European countries will study psychology of people who live in Europe, scientists in US will study psychological processes of those who live in USA, etc.? In other words, I try to explain that, however, American psychologists can state that results of their study are appropriate for people from different parts of world, it does not mean that results of American studies denies results of studies in other countries.
Unfortunately, the information used in this article is very difficult to apply and compare with own experience. Of course, I agree that cultural factors significantly influence the differences with respect to psychological phenomena in different societies, countries, cultures. For example, when I had communicated with other cultures the differences between the representatives of my country, and they were quite noticeable for me. For example, my friends from Macedonia were more emotional, while my friend from Romania has always been more secretive and silent. Also, I found differences in the sexual behavior and attitudes of representatives of different cultures, etc.
However, this article is scientific study about scientific psychological studies that is why, I think, it is better topic for discussion rather for scientists-psychologists than for students.
References
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602-613.
