Global psychology: implications for cross-cultural research and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Psychology, both as science and practice, has been largely developed in one cultural area of the world: Europe and North America. As a result, the discipline is culture-bound, limited in its origins, concepts, and empirical findings to only this small portion of the world. The discipline is also culture-blind, largely ignoring the influence of the role of culture in shaping the development and display of human behaviour. These limitations have resulted in the dominant position of a Western Academic Scientific Psychology (WASP) in relation to other cultural perspectives on human behaviour. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – This paper draws on concepts and strategies in psychology (particularly cross-cultural and intercultural psychology) to propose some remedies to problems arising from the dominant WASP position. For example, of what relevance is such a limited perspective to understanding human activity in other cultures; and how can such a limited understanding serve the purpose of effective intercultural interactions? Findings – The eventual goal is to achieve a global psychology that incorporates concepts and findings from societies and cultures from all parts of the world, one that will permit a valid understanding of people within their cultures, and permit effective intercultural across cultures. Originality/value – The paper presents some criticisms of the dominant western psychology (WASP), and proposes that the achievement of a more global psychology may be within reach if some concepts and methods now available in psychology from both the dominant western sources and from those working in the rest of the world are used.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".