The concept of cross culture is a psychological philosophy that refers to the scientific study of human mental process and behavior hat is exhibited through the extensive research of human behavior including both their variability and variance in different cultural perspectives. Through the expansive research exploited in various aspects to explore different cultures and behaviors as well as the languages, the meaning of cross culture therefore is vital in the psychological development thus the need to understand the meaning of this idea beyond the psychological context. There has been lots of concern in the field especially in the Northern America hence the need to develop the faculty to explain the various assumptions pertaining the varying success factors. There are thus questions as to whether theories dealing with these central themes such as effect as well as the concept of self and the issues dealing with psychology as those of cognition, anxiety, and lack of external and internal validity, depression can be exported to other cultural contexts. In order to ascertain this idea, cross cultures examines it beyond psychology, using the methodologies that would factor in the cultural differences so as to enable and allow a room for the variations (Greenwald 1992)
However, some critics have it pointing to the methodological failures of the cross cultures in psychological research and the claim in that serious shortcomings in the theoretical and methodological bases used to impede rather than help the scientific psychological principles in the universe that pertains the cross culture and psychology as well as the psychologists are switching more ti the study of how these cultural differences occur rather than how they search for universe especially in the cases for physical studies or chemical reactions. Before setting off the arguments in this essay, it is wise to differentiate the confusing premises of cross cultural psychology and that of cultural psychology with the later referring to the branch of psychology that deals with how human behavior is influenced by the cultural differences, which therefore implies that this psychological can often be compared to one another across different cultures in a very limited context. In the contrary, cross cultural psychology only refers to the possible hunt for the worldwide behavior and psychological processes. There cross cultural psychology can only e looked at as a type of universal behavior and that which includes the mental process included in the methodological research rather than an entirely separate field within the psychological study. Therefore, we have to admit and acknowledge the fact that people have different traits (Bowen 2010). However, my question still remains as to whether the traits defined by majority of the psychologists enough to make generalizations across people from different cultures?
In order to analyze the question stemmed from the above paragraph, cultural psychologists have often questioned by comparing traits across cultures. In order to ascertain this, they examined the question by conducting studies measuring personality factors using the characteristically traits from diverse languages using the lexical studies. However, over various time periods, studies have concluded that various languages have different versions and other factors that may almost appear open though through experience, these factors may have different meanings and contextual bases. It is thus not safe to conclude that the cultures have specific set adjectives. In case such assumption is made among different study backgrounds, it may be a general cultural study research that might produce a general outcome (Freud 2006).
Likewise, many other perspectives of psychology focus on how personal relationships influence human behavior. However, this delicate assumption does not take into account the individual dynamics in psychology that focus on the effects of personal relationships and how these impacts the behavior despite the fact that these behaviors are critical and should be taken into account in the important powers those cultural traits may have in the behavioral expression of human beings. This behavior stems from the argument that it is necessary to understand the culture of the society in itself apart from using the common search finding in the universal law that applies to all the human beings. In fact in most cases, especially in the cross cultures, psychologists pick individual of the varied approaches to examine how various cultures are similar. Likewise, this approach also examine how different cultures especially the western cultural approach to the whole scenario. In this cases, research conducted and the measurements are bound not to produce the results due to the complete fact that the instruments used in the research and measurement are western culture centered which are often translated and applied in other cultures, an act that never produce results as the cross cultural translation loses its effects (James W. 2000).
For instance, taking a case study on emotions amongst the various cultural contexts provide different resonate responses. Across various cultures, researchers have always interpreted emotions in similar ways. In different cross cultural fields in psychology, judgments on facial expressions cross different cultures have different meanings. For instance a study from ten different countries representing ten different cultures that were required to express emotions and the difference in each emotion showed that there is similarity across cultures as to which emotion was the most intense as well as the second most intense till the least intense. The findings however proved to the fact that is held by different cultures that were used in the sample indicate that there is universal facial expression and that the findings hold into that that thought and view of some cross cultural psychologists . Despite this similarity, the ratings on the emotional intensity varied from one participant to another in cross culture (Goffman 2005).
This is similar to the term that is often used in psychology that is referred to as subjective well being that is often as a result of three different constituents that of satisfaction that indicated a presence of positive emotional experience and that of absence of negative emotional experience with the first one being that of cognitive evaluation of the negative emotions. This indicates that a cross culture, people may have different opinions on the ideal level of subjective well being but their differences may sometimes be subject to one argument. This comparison across cultures takes into account how the individuals in one culture may rate one aspect in differently from individuals in a different culture that may be an over or conclusive expression of individuals from other cultures thereby not providing universal indicator of how much individuals from other cultures are subjective to the well being they experience over a certain period of time. It was clear from the research that individualist from cultural members are happier than the collective members of a cultural group. This sprouts fourth the argument of income inequality and subjective well being of who is richer and happier, an argument that still explicit hot debates. It is assumed that nations of economic stability are generally rich and also contain non materialistic features such as more stable democratic government, together with better judicial reforms that ensure proper human rights hence overall contribution to the total well being of the nation or individuals in the country. However, this argument is subject to debate as it has not yet be ascertained as to whether the subjective well being is linked to the material possession that may influence different ideas and traits that the well off societies and individuals may possess (Bright 2004).
While conducting the research, the sample and the self concept measure was based on the children’s own perception of the observations of the variation between their parents and teachers in the Middle East who were of Western world decent. The self concept assessment was based on individuals of ages seven and eighteen composing of over sixty items with their subscale. This included making points based on physical appearance and attributes of the individuals as well as their intellectual and school status in addition to the happiness and satisfaction level. The other aspect of their self concept that was import to be covered in the case includes that of freedom and anxiety as well as behavioral adjustments and popularity.
Likewise, two validity responses were based on the individual’s responses and the common tendency of randomly answering questions. It is as simple as test items that are simple descriptive of statements that are written to grade two or three students for enhancing their reading levels. In this case, children often indicate what their reading level implies in each item help them select their responses or to choose a no response attitude. The findings in this study reflect universal self concept and their subscale scores permitting more detailed interpretation. In national data collected, over 1500 students of ages up to 18 years recruited from the regional throughout the United States showed similar finding (Hoffman 2001).
The findings from the research show that the self concept idea detaches itself from the behavioral possibilities. The research findings indicate that a person’s self concept is a summary of the formulation of his or her perceived behavioral possibilities and all these limits are not subjective to the region of the world that the person originates. A summary of the formulation indicates that to pursue this analysis one has to formulate everything that each individual can do and that they cannot do and mark that as nothing in the world filled with some things. The ideas expressed are simultaneously appraised but the behavioral possibilities and the limits of the doctrinal attached to it.
Self concept sets the limits on one’s behavior as well as the possibilities that come with this individual’s behavior. Therefore by virtue of self assigned status, one may be accorded the ineligibility of valued life participation aspects. However, when one considers certain commonly global statuses, the virtue of their eligibility and worthiness can be a cause of another person’s appraisal and love to one another. To believe in an individual’s self concept is to praise them of their well grounded judgments and behavioral implications (Bergner 2008).
A limitation on a person’s self concept is often identified by the individuals themselves in their expressions of doubts when they claim that they can never do something and still be them. When individuals are bound to such a self concept, and still be who they take themselves to be, the action in question is often beyond thinking of as something an individual would or could do. Due this belief in their mind, it is not easy to violate who they so think they are or think of themselves but in most cases are forced to see themselves as different beings. This constraint therefore serve in most cases as a force of social good in the cases of most people who are anti social and are of unthinkable acts that one could never do. They are made to think of themselves as the individuals who are to deliberate onto people’s lives as crucially needed to defend the rights of others in assertive manner (Khilstrom & Klein 2994).
The self concept also deliberates on what a person would take to be in relation to the world disregarding the final the limitations imposed on them by the real world in a manner that are not the true reflection of the self concepts. For these individuals that the world has harsh looks and judgments on, they believe that it is in that nature that the world is expressed to them that it really is. Therefore to conclude, it is safer to say that to have a self concept is just the same way as having appraisals of oneself and to live in a world of one’s own satisfaction.
Works cited
Beck, A., Rush, A., Shaw, B., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford.Bergner, R. (2008). Status dynamic psychotherapy with depressed individuals. Psychotherapy
Bergner, R. (1993). Victims into perpetrators. Psychotherapy,
Bowen, M. (2010). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Aronson.Bright, D. (2004). Criticism in your life. New York: Master Media.Freud, A. (2006). The ego and the mechanism of defense. New York: International Universities Press.
Goffman, E. (2005). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Greenwald, A. (1992). Unconscious cognition reclaimed. American Psychologist.Hoffman, L. (2001). Foundations of family therapy. New York: Basic Books.James, W. (2000). Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.Kihlstrom, J., & Klein, S. (1994). The self as a knowledge structure.
