Introduction
Concern over the generalizability of American psychological studies to other cultures around the world has emerged recently prompting various scientists to conduct multiple research to determine whether this assumption still stands. The research undertaken mostly involves a small and generalizable group of individuals which are often the college students. The main reason for the use of this group of population is that they possess very similar characteristics such as age, values, economic factors and education among several others. The two main figures in this discussion are Dr. Jefferey Arnnet and Dr. Gerald Haeffel and associates. Arnett through his arguments feel that these studies are not generalizable of the world’s population while Haeffel and colleagues defend this research (Gantt and Slife 1). Generalization may fail to capture the real human nature in a global perspective and therefore need for more inclusive research methods.
Summary
Haeffel and associates view is that the American psychological research is generalizable since the primary aim of research should not be to focus on achieving a perfect study by utilizing cultural diversity and therefore believe that the concerns on generalizability are overstated (Gantt and Slife 1). In his accusation that psychology has “physics envy,” Arnett state that psychology should instead structure better ways that reflect the unique nature of humans. He argues that attaining the understanding of human psychology using cross-cultural research would lead to missing the unique values and features of other cultures.
Analysis and Response
Haeffel and colleagues argue that if the study concentrates much of its attention on obtaining accurate subjects, it will lose the advantage of having enough time to conduct the actual study. Another view that they feel strengthens the generalization of these research is that the basic human process is similar to everyone. They advocate for the use of basic research method over cultural, scientific ideas since the former boost the desire to boost people’s knowledge and enhances the understanding of the world surrounding us (Gantt and Slife 1). However, there exist several disadvantages of using basic research method. Some of these include the issue of confidentiality, differences in results from various studies and lack of variables to manipulate hence impossible to conduct statistical analysis.
Even though Haeffel and his associates believe that the concern on generalizing is overstated, they agree that the concern on cultural factors on some research topics is valid. These include issues such as gender roles and family structure which they refer them to as less relevant to fundamental human processes (Gantt and Slife1). They also disregard the idea that these fundamental processes have no real world implications. In illustrating the vital role of basic research, Haeffel and colleagues cite examples that include the development of cognitive behavioral therapy from basic research on cognition. They argue that progress in science is mainly as a result of falsifying theories that focus on main psychological processes (Gantt and Slife 2). Even with the recognition that cultural factors are essential in understanding the universals, they state that these factors do not hinder the generalizability of the research involving basic processes.
Contrary to the approach being used (basic research), Arnett suggests a broad and profoundly intellectual inclusivity in the philosophy of science. In this, he says that the goal of human sciences should be to utilize the tools of the scientific method to make clear the understanding of human behavior, functioning and development. He despises the idea of pursuing the universal laws and theories’ falsification despite how shallow they are in relation to individual’s life experience practically (Gantt and Slife 7).
Arnett further state that scientific method in psychology should be extensive enough to include not just the laboratory theories but also the other systematic investigation of the human way of life. Even with psychology celebrating over a centurion since its establishment as a field, Arnett argues that it still misses several valuable pieces of conclusive investigations. Another “physics envy” that Arnett despise is the narrowing of theories and scientific techniques so that they can appear as those in natural science. Instead, he suggests that broader range of new methods and inclusiveness of creativity should be applied in synthesize of cultural perspectives globally (Gantt and Slife 8). This will increase the understanding of the infinite human experience.
Generalization is the possibility of applying research results from a particular study to a broader target population assuming that the results from a smaller set of population will be similar to all the other members of the larger population. Generalizability is vital to some psychologists to ease the work of collecting information involving the human nature in general. Referring to one of the features of psychology that human behavior is universal, some psychologist will, therefore, apply the results obtained from a study of a small group of the population to represent the whole population. However, increasing the generalizability raises the question of whether it is possible to generalize results from a complex world comprising several cultures and societies. This is because different cultures and societies may have different behaviors, values and believe hence what happens within one community may not apply to the other (Leung 324).
Arnett is more interested in a study that focuses on cultural diversity rather than on basic processes. His view allows him to consider the fact that people from the different cultural background will behave differently in many ways and therefore generalization will result in bias results. This view may disregard some common issues to people of different cultures such as war, religion, and poverty among many others. Haeffel and associates assumption that the human nature is universal might ignore the diversity of people lifestyle around the world and therefore give biased findings.
Haeffel and colleagues believe that progress in psychological science will only be realized when basic research methods are used to conduct research pertaining human nature. They believe that this method allows room for expanding ideas, synthesis and falsifying of theories to bring the real picture of the world. Arnett believes that progressive psychology will be realized with conclusive research in cultural context to represent the whole world population fully. However, his argument is questionable on how it will result in progressive psychology as it raises concern that it can actually slow this progress. His description of cultural psychology fails to invoke the theory and importance of using a testable hypothesis (Haeffel et al., 570).
Conclusion
The debate on which research method that is likely to bring progression in scientific psychology has recently been a topic of discussion. Some psychologists argue that basic research methods are the most effective in achieving this progress while others believe that cultural context should be considered to recognize other cultures. Arnett disputes the idea of basic research stating that it is biased and fails to capture the real composition of the world. On the other hand. Haeffel and colleagues say that human nature is a universal characteristic and therefore studying a small set of the population gives the real representation of the whole population. Although generalization may appear effective due to a large number of people in world’s population, generalization will mostly provide biased findings due to the complexity of culture and societal values.
Works Cited
Gantt, Edwin E, and Brent Slife. Taking Sides. 19th ed., 2016,
Haeffel, Gerald J., et al. "Theory, not cultural context, will advance American psychology." (2009): 570.
Leung, Lawrence. "Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research." Journal of family medicine and primary care 4.3 (2015): 324.
