Which psychologist is developed a theory of multicultural counseling and therapy MCT

I. Theoretical Basis

Multicultural therapy [MCT] developed out of the recognition that current forms of psychotherapy were inadequate to meet the needs of ethnic minorities. In fact, some have suggested that ethnic minority clients have been harmed by psychotherapy as currently formulated and practiced. Barriers to effective cross-cultural counseling included the generic aspects of Eurocentric counseling: verbal and emotional expressiveness, individual centered, self-disclosure and intimacy, nuclear family orientation, and egalitarian relationships. These elements of counseling and therapy are often in opposition to the beliefs or values of ethnic minorities. Many ethnic groups value the family rather than the individual, have hierarchical family patterns, demonstrate different communication patterns and styles, and are more hesitant about revealing information of a personal nature. In addition, there has been little attention paid by humanistic, psychodynamic, and cognitive-behavior therapies to issues of racism, oppression, and acculturation conflicts. Because of the inadequacies of current counseling theories and techniques, there was a need to develop a multicultural therapy.

MCT has developed into two somewhat divergent camps, although both have stressed the importance of considering culture in counseling. Total immersion into the cultural group under study is a part of the emic approach [culture-specific model]. It attempts to generate new theories of psychopathology and therapy from the study of different cultural groups. Current systems of the classification and treatment of mental disorders are considered to be “culturally encapsulated.” As Uchenna Nwachuku and Allen Ivey in 1991 pointed out, “In contrast with the conventional approach of adapting existing counseling theory to ‘fit’ a new culture, the culture-specific method seeks to generate a new theory and technologies of helping.” Only by adopting such a methodology can one prevent the imposition of an existing framework on other ethnic groups. New theories originating from the culture under study can be developed using anthropological methods and observations. Natural helping styles and means of problem solving for each cultural group are then identified. A culture-specific psychotherapy training model involving the African-Igbo, a tribe in Nigeria, was described by Nwachuku and Ivey. The steps involved:

Generating a culture-specific theory. Questions such as, “How do people in this culture view the helping relationship?” “What methods are used in solving problems?” “How similar or different are they from EuroAmerican approaches” were used to determine problem-solving approaches from the African-Igbo perspective. Study of the culture revealed a group, extended family, and community orientation. Childrearing was shared by the family and the entire community. The locus of decision making centered in the extended family and community, and problem solving involved participation by these units.

Generating training material based on the analysis of the culture. It was determined that effective helping approaches involved a multiperspective rather than individual frame of reference. The family and community values in decision making were stressed as well the need for harmony for cultural tradition. A more directive style was more in line with cultural expectations.

The emic or culture-specific orientation avoids the “imposed etic” or the presumed universality of theories developed in one culture and applied to another. Many EuroAmerican therapists apply psychodynamic, humanistic, or cognitive-behavioral techniques to members of different ethnic groups without questioning the validity of this practice. Donald Cheek was one of the first to point out the ethnocentric basis of traditional counseling approaches. He stated,

I am advocating treating one segment of our population quite differently from another. This is implicit in my statement that Blacks do not benefit from many therapeutic approaches to which Whites respond. And I have referred to some of these approaches of counselors and therapists as “White techniques.”

Many of the recommendations regarding therapy with ethnic minorities contain aspects of the culture-specific approach. With American Indians, there has been suggestions to incorporate cultural healing elements such as the talking circle, sweat lodge, and community interventions such as network therapy. African American therapists often indicate the importance of the Afrocentric worldview. This perspective has its roots in both the African heritage and experiences from slavery. As opposed to the Eurocentric view, there is greater emphasis on interdependence, extended family orientation, spirituality, and holism. Treatment modalities are expected to include Afrocentric elements.

In 1993, Paul Pedersen and Allen Ivey developed a description of four synthetic cultures that are actually based on the extreme grouping of the values of different cultural groups found in the world: [a] The Alpha culture is described as high in power distance. Inequalities as accepted and expected. Children are taught to obey and authority is respected; [b] The Beta culture is characterized as strong uncertainty avoidance. To deal with uncertainly, rigid rules have developed, and deviant or different ideas are suppressed. Citizen protest is repressed and conservatism and emphasis on the law is popular; [c] The Gamma culture is associated with high individualism. Emphasis is on the individual or the nuclear family. People have the right to express their own opinion and freedom of the press is supported. Education is the process of learning how to learn and evaluate; [d] The Delta culture is highly masculine. Money and possessions are dominant values. Men are expected to be assertive and tough while women should be nurturing and tender. Performance, strength and accomplishments are admired. Culture-centered therapy skills involve identifying culturally learned values and expectations and developing techniques and goals that are consistent with the specific groups.

In general, the culture-specific models have identified the differences in values, orientation, and philosophy that need to be addressed in counseling and the new therapy skills that need to be learned in working with culturally different populations. However, not all multicultural clinicians share the culture-specific perspective in multicultural therapy. Suzette Speight, Linda Myers, Chikako Cox, and Pamela Highlen argued in 1991 that the culture-specific approach makes multicultural psychotherapy an “extra skill area” that is somehow different from “regular counseling.” They contend that culture-specific methodology could have negative consequences, particularly if a “cookbook” method of therapy is employed with a checklist of the values of each cultural group and directions on how counseling should proceed. Such a approach would overemphasize cultural differences, ignore individual variations, and lead to possible stereotyping ethnically different clients.

The second trend in multicultural therapy involves an etic or modified universal perspective. Under this framework, all counseling is considered to involve cultural factors [defined broadly to include differences between the therapist and client in terms of diversity issues such as age, gender, social class, religious background, and ethnicity]. A proponent of the universal perspective to multicultural therapy is Mary Fukuyama who argued that cultural factors are present in all psychotherapy and must be addressed. In working with all clients it is important to consider the context and social environment when conceptualizing the presenting problem. Such a focus would enable the therapist to gain an understanding of the worldview of the client. The modified universal approach would also reduce the danger of stereotyping, encourage the assessment and consideration of cultural values and beliefs, and understand how societal norms and values can affect processes such as acculturation. Criticisms of the universal multicultural perspective include the continued reliance on therapy approaches based on individualistic and Eurocentric models with culturally different groups. Others are concerned that defining culture to include sexual orientation, age, religiosity, and other diversity issues will dilute the emphasis on the plight of ethnic minorities.

Although the culture-specific and universal forms of multicultural therapy have been espoused, neither has not been fully developed as a theory. Not until 1996 was a multicultural therapy theory presented in a complete form. In a book titled, A Theory of Multicultural Counseling and Therapy by Derald Sue, Allen Ivey, and Paul Pedersen, multicultural counseling and psychotherapy [MCT] is described as a “metatheory” of counseling or a “theory or theories.” MCT incorporates elements of both the universal and cultural-specific perspectives. As currently constructed, the theory of multicultural counseling and psychotherapy is composed of six propositions:

MCT is considered a metatheory of counseling and psychotherapy that includes a culture-centered organizational framework in which to view different theories of counseling. All theories of psychotherapy are identified as stemming from a particular cultural context. Mental health professionals need to identify the values, assumptions, and philosophical bases in their work. Not recognizing these can result in the imposition of their worldview onto their clients. MCT accepts aspects of the psychodynamic, humanistic, behavioral, and biogenic approaches as they relate to the worldview of the client. MCT co-constructs definitions of the problem and solutions with the client that reduces the chances of oppression. The approach attempts to help individuals, families, and organizations develop new ways of thinking, feeling, and acting both within and between differing world-views. Failure in therapy can result from an overemphasis on either cultural differences or similarities. Successful therapy involves utilizing a combined perspective.

Multiple levels of experiences [individual, group, and universal] and contexts [individual, family, and cultural] affect both the counselor and the client. Although the salience and strength of these identities vary from individual to individual and over time, they must be considered part of the focus of treatment. Elements of the similarities and differences between the therapist and client can either assist or obstruct development of a working alliance. It is important for the therapist to identify and strategize in dealing with these factors. The person–environment interaction is central to MCT. Both the therapist and client are affected on multiple levels through these identities, and this interaction can influence the conduct and success of therapy

Cultural identity of both the client and the therapist can affect problem definition and the identification of appropriate goals and treatment. These dynamics are also influenced by the dominant–subordinate relationship among different cultural groups in the United States. Most theories of helping have ignored issues of dominance and power. The stage of ethnic identity for both White and ethnically different clients can affect the relationship. For many ethnic minorities, the cultural identity can go through stages such as unawareness or unacceptance of the self as a cultural being, recognizing the impact of cultural variables, redefining the self as a cultural being, and the development of a multicultural perspective. Therapists who are not members of ethnic minorities are also hypothesized to go through a parallel process.

When the processes of helping and goals are consonant with the experiences and cultural values of the client, the outcome is likely to be enhanced. This can be accomplished by matching the counselor and client on relevant variables or to have the counselor develop a larger repertoire of multicultural skills. MCT recognizes the two aspects of culturally sensitive therapy, that of the cultural specific and the universal. The cultural-specific approach can help generate new helping skills and theories whereas the universal can help identify therapy processes transcending culture. Co-construction with the client can facilitate these processes.

MCT stresses the importance of developing additional helper roles such as that of an advisor, consultant, advocate, systems interventionist, and prevention specialist. Traditional psychotherapy has emphasized one-to-one interactions. The new roles help focus attention on the family, community, and government policies that may also affect the mental health of a particular client.

Instead of self-actualization, insight, or behavior change, the basic goal of MCT is the “liberation of consciousness.” It involves the expansion of consciousness as it applies to the individual, family, group, and context for behavior. The underlying cultural dimensions of specific problems are identified with the specific client. MCT therapists are able to draw on both Eurocentric and other cultural forms of helping. The psychoeducational component of MCT is emphasized in helping the client gain awareness of the cultural aspects related to the presenting problem.

Cross-Cultural Research Approaches

Culture is primarily studied using two research approaches. The first, an ‘etic approach,’ assumes that behavioral constructs [i.e., concepts, methods, measures] studied in one culture have significance in all other cultures. Alternatively, an ‘emic approach’ describes the study of cultural norms that are specific to one group of people or within one culture. Studies using an etic approach require researchers to develop, test, and analyze constructs in the same manner across groups. As a result, findings may overlook specific cultural perspectives or culturally specific behavioral nuances. For example, researchers using an etic approach may assume that friendship ‘looks’ the same in all cultural groups, and would likely assess friendship processes by asking the same research questions and methodologies in all groups. Scholars using an emic approach assume that their cultures may not share the same attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, or values about friendship and may tailor empirical questions or methodologies to specific cultural groups. One example of emic research could involve the comparison of friendship processes and provisions in Western [or relatively independent, individualistic] cultures versus more interdependent, collectivist Eastern or Southern cultures. In this case, an emic approach would entail the use of culturally adapted instruments and observational coding schemes to ensure the collection and analysis of culture-specific information about children's friendships.

Using both etic and emic approaches, scholars can help distinguish those research constructs that are universally meaningful and those that are culture specific. It is likely that aspects of many constructs, such as friendship, may support the etic and emic perspectives. That is, some elements of friendship may be viewed as universally held while others may be unique to particular cultural groups.

C General Considerations

Commonalities and diversities also exist in other ethnic/cultural groups identified in the Census, such as White Americans, Black/African Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. The previous discussion is simply an illustration using Asian Americans and Hispanic/Latino[a] Americans as examples. The integrated etic-emic approach offers a practical strategy for addressing the complex situation of diversity in cultural proficiency training. This approach presents the commonalities in the cultural orientation of the groups encompassed by the general ethnic categories, while at the same time, alerts the mental health professional to the possible diversities among them, and focusing more on the specific groups with which one is most likely to work. This perspective provides students, trainees, and clinicians a general view of human similarities and the sociocultural issues of the major ethnic/cultural groups, while helping them understand the nuances of between-group and within-group differences as well as similarities.

Etic versus emic approaches

There is a fundamental dilemma with all international crosscultural comparisons: The need to provide an international common language without losing sight of the unique experiences that occur as a feature of living in different social and cultural contexts. There is a need to look for global, universal features of mental conditions, an approach that is driven by analysis and emphasizes similarities rather than differences. This etic approach relies on multigroup comparisons and is often carried out from a viewpoint that is located outside of the system. On the other hand, an emic approach emphasizes the local and specific interpretation that is more bound within culture interpretation. Although the etic and emic approaches are usually presented as opposites, perhaps a balance between the two approaches is in the interest of an international classification. The cultural applicability of international classification warrants careful consideration in future comparative research. For example, WHO's research on drinking norms definitely show differences in terms of thresholds of problem drinking and dependence in wet and dry cultures [Room et al., 1996]. Cultural differences in the meaning of mental distress may vary in different ways:

In terms of threshold, the point at which respondents from different societies recognize a disorder as something serious;

Whether the entities described in international classifications count as problems in all cultures;

In causal assumptions about how mental problems arise;

In the extent to which there exist culture-specific manifestations of symptoms not adequately captured by official disease nomenclature.

Understanding Culture-Universal and Culture-Specific Phenomena

Before delving into the major domains and pathways of the CIMH model, it is important to understand the concepts of etic and emic. In the mental health field, the terms etic and emic have been used to differentiate culture-universal and culture-specific phenomena. Specifically, what issues cut across all groups, and what issues are specific to certain populations. I have previously defined and elaborated upon the origins of these words in the encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology [Hwang & Ting, 2013a, 2013b]. The origins of the words etic and emic were historically coined by the linguistic anthropologist Kenneth Pike in 1954, and had a distinctively different meaning than how it is used in the mental health field today.

The term etic originates from the word “phonetic,” and originally referred to units of sound that are not distinctive to a particular language. As such, etic refers to culture-universal sounds that might appear in multiple languages. In the context of studying culture, etic first referred to the outsider’s account or perspective [Pike, 1954]. Classically, this was exemplified by the White researcher observing and studying indigenous cultures around the world. However, there was a problematic assumption of neutrality and that the outsider’s viewpoint was more objective, and as a result, conferred greater advantages. This assumption was ethnocentric, and led to many erroneous assumptions about White culture as representing universal truths and being the standard for which other groups are compared. Specifically, this instilled the practice of comparing all diverse populations with White or European culture, which resulted in an ethnocentric, monocular, and cross-cultural framework bias.

The term emic was originally derived from the word “phonemic,” and refers to the units of sound that are distinctive to a particular language, or sounds that are culture- or language-specific. Since this initial conceptualization, these terms have been defined, modified, and used in diverse ways by different disciplines and fields of study. Emic refers to the insider’s account or perspective [Pike, 1954], which was traditionally seen as being more subjective and culture-specific. The goal of the emic perspective was to fully understand the culture through deep anthropological understanding and full immersion. In doing so, the framework became less cross-cultural or comparative, and focused more on ethnic-specific studies and understanding the culture from its own perspectives. The emic researcher was an active participant, and would interact and collaborate with the members of the culture of interest. However, because White anthropological researchers often stood out among indigenous peoples, participatory biases may have influenced the conclusions that were made. The emic approach was intended to better understand the beliefs, customs, and values of the groups being studied. Etic and emic approaches can be somewhat likened to present-day cross-cultural comparisons versus ethnic studies.

In the field of psychology, the terms etic and emic took on different meanings. French [1963] was the first researcher to refer to the distinction between etic and emic approaches, and Berry [1969] was among the first to utilize these terms when conducting cross-cultural psychological research [Berry, 1989]. These terms were then used to distinguish between culture-universal phenomena [etic] versus culture-specific phenomena [emic] [Hwang & Ting, 2013a, 2013b; Sue & Sue, 2003]. There is merit to both emic and etic approaches. Utilizing both viewpoints together confers the advantage of understanding and taking into account cultural similarities [culture-universal etics] and differences [culture-specific emics]. This is advantageous because it helps mental health practitioners understand which issues and phenomena cut across cultures, and how specific ethnocultural groups express and manifest certain issues in culture-specific ways. Specifically, it helps us understand which issues apply to all humans, and that culture-universal phenomena can be exhibited in culture-specific ways.

Let me take a moment to deconstruct these terms and give practical examples of how to utilize them when understanding CIMH. This is important because these terms and their definitions tend to be somewhat esoteric and opaque—resulting in ambiguity for those trying to utilize them in a practical way. One way to think about etic is to imagine that there are culture-universal phenomena that all human beings and culture groups engage in [Hwang & Ting, 2013a, 2013b]. For example, all societies have traditions and celebrations [eg, holidays, celebrating birth, mourning death], methods and styles of communication [eg, verbal and nonverbal, and direct and indirect], and norms for appropriate human behavior [eg, committing crimes is bad and being a contributing member of society is good]. The manner in which different societies and cultures carry out and express these various culture-universal phenomena varies from culture to culture, which refers to the emics.

For example, all human societies have some method of celebrating the birth of a child and for mourning the loss of a loved one. The specific methods for celebrating birth and death may be very different across cultures. For example, in Western cultures, funerals tend to be one day and dressing in black is very common place. In some Asian heritage cultures, funeral rituals can last many days depending on when somebody was born, their astrological sign, and mourning may involve burning paper money and paper-made objects so that the deceased can take with them to the afterlife. Another culture-universal [etic] phenomenon is that in all cultures, there are customs for dating and marriage. The culture-specific [emic] manner in which this is carried out can vary quite a bit. For example, in many Asian heritage cultures arranged marriages can be quite commonplace. In many Western cultures, arranged marriages have fallen out of favor and methods of meeting significant others have changed as well, with many people finding relationships through online dating. It is important to remember that culture is different from race and ethnicity. Cultures are constantly changing and evolving. Cultural adaptations are not ethnic or racial adaptations and are focused on individualizing and tailoring services for culture, not race.

In regards to clinical issues, all cultures [etic] experience some form of sadness or depression. However, the emic, or how psychiatric illness such as depression is labeled and experienced or phenomenologically expressed, can vary [Hwang & Ting, 2013a, 2013b]. For example, the majority of the Chinese population uses the term and diagnosis of neurasthenia instead of the term major depression. Neurasthenia is a more somatic expression of depression, and is included as a cultural idiom of distress, or culture-bound syndrome in the DSM [American Psychiatric Association, 1994, 2000]. In addition, there may be cultural differences in the use of verbal versus nonverbal expression of distress, or in the directness or indirectness of how people communicate. Neurasthenia and somatic issues are discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

In regards to research perspectives, an emic approach takes more of an ethnic studies approach and is less concerned about comparing one group to another. Specifically, it studies the culture for what it is, and tries to do so by taking on the cultural lens of those being studied. As mentioned before, the comparative or cross-cultural approach has historically been ethnocentrically biased, and utilized the lens or assumption that White cultures are the primary comparison group, deeming them the normative frame of reference.

In terms of assessment or questionnaire development, an emic approach would try to develop questionnaires that tap into the constructs of sadness and depression from the bottom up; whereas, an etic approach would try to apply instruments developed in one culture to other cultures [eg, utilizing the Beck Depression Inventory to assess depression across multiple groups]. Since most psychiatric and psychological assessment measures have been developed on White American or European populations, to assume that they are reliable and valid in other cultures is problematic—unless they are rigorously tested and normed for other groups. Similarly, treatments that are developed and tested on one population do not necessarily generalize to other populations. It is important to empirically test evidence-based practices to ensure that they have cross-cultural validity and generalizability in terms of client engagement and outcomes.

Ideally, an integrative and potentially interactive emic–etic approach would be the best methodology for fully understanding cultural similarities, as well as comparing cultural differences. Knowledge gained from utilizing a combined approach would contribute to a culture-universal and specific psychological science, and help reduce ethnocentric biases that tend to affect cross-cultural research as well as clinical practice. For the rest of this chapter, I will focus on discussing how culture influences various mental health processes. I will review the CIMH model and also continue to highlight etic and emic phenomena. This book utilizes an integrative ethnic studies, comparative, and integrative approach to highlighting interesting cultural impacts on mental health.

The special case of cultural validity

For a long time there have been calls for practitioners to develop cultural competence [e.g., APA 2003]. Specifically, the APA’s [2003] multicultural guidelines for research highlight the development and implementation of research practices that place culture at a central place in contemporary research. Typically, there have been two approaches to studying the cultural validity of theories: etic and emic [Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011]. The etic approach focuses on developing theories that can be applied universally and on testing the generalizability of theories across diverse groups. In contrast, the emic approach focuses on developing theories specific to an individual cultural group or on identifying culturally specific factors. More recently, scholars [Cheung et al., 2011] have proposed integrating etic and emic approaches. Integrating the two approaches would help to identify personality constructs and to develop new measures that could be universal at their core but incorporate personality characteristics that can be found across cultures. “Psychological science will benefit by moving from etic or emic methods to approaches that more accurately represent our understanding of the complex interplay of universal and culturally specific influences on psychological phenomena” [Hardin, Robitschek, Flores, Navarro, & Ashton, 2014]. Despite the advantages of these approaches, there are also several limitations: For example, there has been an almost exclusive focus on the cultural validity of assessments, in particular focusing on the assessment of personality constructs [e.g., Cheung et al., 2011]. Early approaches [e.g., Hui & Triandis, 1985; Coulacoglou, 2008] focused on the cultural validity of tests as a function of different types of equivalence [e.g., linguistic equivalence]. This focus of assessment still continues.

Yet questions of cultural validity should expand beyond simple questions about the construct validity to more complicated questions about underlying theoretical relationships and their implications. For example, personality assessments reveal individual differences in traits, those interested in emotional states [e.g., anxiety, depression] may implement constructs in an empirical way, such as behavioral manifestations [e.g., poor academic performance]. Such types of studies [i.e., using experimental designs] compose only 15% of the searched articles in the 2012 volume of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Second, existing approaches to cultural validity concentrate on evaluating the extent to which assessments and theories are cross-culturally relevant/equivalent and thus valid. This focus provides information for making decisions regarding the application of a construct or assessment in a specific cultural context [Hardin et al., 2014]. However, knowing that a particular assessment instrument has limited cultural validity in a specific cultural context does not necessarily imply that the underlying theoretical construct is not valid.

Finally, existing approaches to cultural validity have almost exclusively focused on cultural groups defined in terms of racial, national, or geographic linguistic differences. However, as Matsumoto and Yoo [2006] argue, cross-cultural researchers have moved beyond this Phase I research to more sophisticated questions, such as the identification of meaningful dimensions of cultural variability [e.g., individualism/collectivism; Phase II research], to cultural studies that use these measured individual-level dimensions in place of group-level categories Phase III research to Phase IV studies that empirically link these individual-level dimensions to group-level observed differences. Thus, to keep pace with advances in cross-cultural research that have moved away from reified group differences, approaches to testing cultural validity must also move away from examining for whom theoretical constructs are more or less culturally valid to understanding why theoretical constructs are more or less valid. Hardin et al. [2014] addressed these limitations in existing approaches to cultural validity by delineating a new perspective referred to as the cultural lens approach [CLA]. The CLA is a combined emic-etic approach [Cheung et al., 2011] because it integrates culturally specific concepts into existing theories in order to expand their universality. The goal of the CLA is to facilitate distinguishing culturally specific manifestations from the underlying theoretical principles, thus allowing testing the generalizability of theoretical concepts in a more direct way. More specifically, the CLA goes beyond individual differences assessment to include other types of applications, such as specific experimental manipulations or behavioral measures. Second, the CLA goes beyond categorical decisions regarding issues of equivalence between diverse groups; rather, the CLA follows a series of steps to assess cultural validity, which: [1] leads to the generation of testable hypotheses about cultural variations in the implementation of constructs and theoretical propositions, and [2] ultimately in many cases extends theoretical applications across cultures. The CLA provides answers to questions of when and why a theory is valid [e.g., Zanna & Fazio, 1982].

2.2 Cross-Cultural Methodology

Because results of cross-cultural research are dependent on the method used to study leadership, this section defines the various alternatives to and factors in cross-cultural research. The methods used to incorporate culture into psychological research have evolved since almost 50 years ago. Traditionally, two types of approaches have been recognized: [1] when existing theories, models, and measures in one country or culture are validated in another, or the etic approach, and [2] when theories, models, and measures evolve from inside a culture, or the emic approach. The etic approach is further expanded to include imposed etic and derived etic. Imposed etic refers to using existing theories or measures from one culture in another with almost no modification other than translations. Derived etic, on the other hand, refers to an approach in which a theory or measure developed in two different cultures coalesces; it is that which is common between the two cultures.

In addition to the different approaches to cross-cultural research, the researcher’s cultural background can impact the formation of the research question and the interpretation of results. Therefore, cross-cultural researchers can be categorized by their level of involvement with a culture as either exogenous or endogenous investigators. Exogenous researchers are those who conduct research outside their own culture. Therefore, they are not entangled with the culture, and high degree of objectivity is the outcome. Danger, however, lies in the fact that exogenous researchers’ assumptions may be derived from their own culture or their stereotypic view of the culture they are studying. Endogenous researchers, those who conduct research within their own culture, may be less objective but are more sensitive to nuances and meanings of their own culture.

Thus, cross-cultural research usually starts with emic measures in one culture, which then can be tested in the other cultures as imposed etic measures. The items that best describe both cultures will form the derived etic measure. Most research on leadership thus far can be categorized as imposed etic, particularly the validation of theories developed in the United States in other cultures. Additionally, U.S. scholars have conducted most of the research and developed most of the main theories of leadership; hence, the existing knowledge about leadership is heavily influenced by North American values and expectations. Therefore, given the extent to which exogenous researchers from one specific culture have dominated the theories and conceptualizations of leadership, it is mostly representative of one perspective. For this reason, multicultural research teams that include endogenous researchers are the new trend and the recommended form of cross-cultural research.

4 Emics and Etics

In any large-scale research project, some original language material will not translate well. This is to be expected, and in many ways researchers should look forward to the challenge of interpreting difficult-to-translate material. As research efforts become more global, the cross-cultural aspects of translation have become even more critically important in developing research of the same, multilinguistic nature. Cross-cultural researchers have laid out important groundwork in demonstrating both potential pitfalls and proposing guidance for developing research across country borders. The idea of universal concepts [etic] or culture-specific concepts [emic] holds particular importance in translation methodology. Any cross-cultural or international study that does not consider the etic/emic issue when developing research instruments or conducting research will create studies of limited validity and value.

Etic approaches to research are studies conducted cross-culturally in order to extract common elements. Hofstede’s well-known IBM study is a prime example of an etic approach to cross-cultural research. Etic research has the potential for reaching much broader, and culturally sweeping, conclusions that are often beyond the scope of only one cultural landscape. Etic aspects of language represent ideas that are more universal, with semantics that are more readily translated between cultures.

Emic approaches to research are studies conducted within a cultural system based on data representative of only that cultural landscape. Emic [e.g., unique and regionally specific] constructs of language can create roadblocks to both the interpretation of research results and how clearly the research parameters and ideas are interpreted by the subjects. One reason for difficulties in translation is that a culture’s emics, or specific manifestations of complex concepts, have not been clearly identified.

For example, the concept of friendship is universal [an etic], but there are specific aspects of friendship that are emic. In the United States, the term friend is used very loosely and includes recently met acquaintances. In China, the term is used to refer to a smaller number of people who have long-term mutual obligations to each other. The need to differentiate between “older brother” and “younger brother” in Japanese is another example of an emic. Another example can be found in the neo-Melanesian language, which has no word for “desert” because rainfall is plentiful in Melanesia and plants grow in most places. However, there are worn-away lands that are referred to as “nothing places” or “ples nating.” In translations of the New Testament, John baptizes in such places rather than in the desert. Clear failures in translation and data collection can often involve a misunderstanding of another culture’s emics, which is a possibility in most phases of cross-cultural research. For this reason, emic manifestations of concepts should be documented and reported. In cross-cultural studies, the reporting often takes the form of what aspects of a concept are shared across cultures and what concepts are culture-specific. Researchers should always remember that it is the combination of etics and emics that advances our understanding of concepts among members of our own and other cultures.

One way of recognizing emic differences, and therefore enhancing the potential of the research in achieving translation and conceptual equivalence, is through the use of back-translation. Translation techniques generally and back-translation techniques in particular have assumed even more importance as researchers attempt to partial out those concepts that are etic in nature from those concepts that are emic.

Cross-Cultural Findings

Cross-cultural psychologists have often endorsed the universality of psychological characteristics, as can be seen in cross-cultural studies on dimensions such as achievement motivation, anxiety, and authoritarianism [Church, 2000]. Mayer et al. [2011] studied the possibility of universality of personality conceptions in cultural traditions as different as Confucianism, Buddhism, and Judaism. They concluded that judging personality was an important aspect of all those different traditions.

The Big Five model has found cross-cultural support generally in two ways; these two are often linked to the distinction between emic and etic [Berry, 1969]. The emic approach in this case aims at finding a trait structure that best summarizes the trait domain of a particular language or culture. Linked to this first approach has been the repeated finding that independent psycholexical studies in various Western languages led to the Big Five structure. Studies comparing lexical Big Five structures from different languages and leading to the conclusion that the Big Five is replicable across those languages are often done through the analysis of the contents of the structures. Notwithstanding the recurrence of the Big Five, the structure is reproduced better in some languages than in others [Saucier and Goldberg, 2001].

The etic approach is typically followed by constructing a trait system [a questionnaire] in one language, and translate it to and apply it in another language or culture. Studies with the Five Factor Personality Inventory [FFPI; Hendriks et al., 1999] in 13 languages gave evidence of the FFPI to be a reliably and valid measure in a large variety of countries [Hendriks et al., 2003]. Similarly, studies with the NEO-PI-R [Costa and McCrae, 1992c] showed replicability of the five factors in most cultures [McCrae et al., 2005]. A lesson drawn by Allik et al. [2013] from studies like these was that it is apparently easy to transcend language barriers using such personality instruments. Notwithstanding such excellent cross-cultural findings, criticism has been expressed repeatedly, especially from the side of the cross-cultural methodologists [e.g., Berry et al., 2002]. An important issue is that translated instruments tend to be relatively insensitive to detect individual differences of interest in the target language. Ashton and Lee [2001], for example, found that certain FFM-Openness to Experience facets were not well applicable in many Asian samples.

Cheung et al. [2011] proposed an approach that would combine etic and emic into an integrated approach. Such a combined approach can be found in De Raad et al. [2010], who compared 14 independently developed trait structures. For each structure, the starting-point was taken in the lexicon of the pertaining language. The trait terms of that language were used to obtain ratings, and those were factored to arrive at a trait structure meaningful to that language. The 14 taxonomies were pairwise compared, after finding a common part of the factor structures on the basis of acceptable translations of items into the languages of a pair. On average, the results indicated that not five, but rather three factors were well replicable across the languages under study. Beyond the first three factors [with traits that are typical of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, respectively] the equivalence of factors across languages tend to divert.

Anticipating the future

Over thirty years ago Cohen [1979] argued for a four pronged approach to the study of tourism built on stressing an emic, processual, contextual, and comparative agenda. It is possible to renovate these touchstones for considering tourism studies, at least in the area of considering the behaviour and experience of tourists as informed by psychology inquiry. It can be suggested that instead of these terms being seen as absolute they represent ranges of activity for consideration with the potential for some studies to focus on select aspects of the range while others pursue the alternate positions. Ranges of inquiry along six dimensions are suggested in Table 2 and discussed below. In essence these dimensions deliver the choices and specifications for tourism studies informed by psychology, and provide both an agenda for future research and a framework for interpreting and benefiting from studies of tourist behaviour and experiences.

Table 2. Ranges of inquiry for tourism studies informed by psychology