Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T05:02:22.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Cross-cultural differences as meaning systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Lutz H. Eckensberger
Edited by
Fons J. R. van de Vijver ,
Athanasios Chasiotis  and
Seger M. Breugelmans
Lutz H. Eckensberger
Affiliation:
DIPF, University of Frankfurt, Germany
Fons J. R. van de Vijver
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Athanasios Chasiotis
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Seger M. Breugelmans
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Centrality and scope of meaning in science: introductory notes

Description and explanation differ in that the latter goes beyond given data by relating these to a theory. It is only through this relation to a theoretical framework that data obtain their meaning. That is equivalent to saying that data as such are meaningless. Therefore theory building is necessarily the goal of any science, and for the construction of the meaning of data it is essential. This is true for the process of theory building and testing. In other words, no sciences can relinquish the process of interpretation, of meaning making. All (not only qualitative) data need interpretation (see also Karasz, this volume). Thus quantitative sciences also contain ‘interpretative speculations’ (Teo, 2008), which are ‘not just descriptions of data, but impart meaning to data and make results understandable’ (p. 51). Teo calls this phenomenon the ‘hermeneutic surplus of interpretation’. So, basically the topic of the following pages necessarily aims right at the heart of science in general, although I restrict the discussion to a particular domain of social science: cross-cultural psychology.

This argument has three implications. Firstly, strict objectivity in data gathering and data interpretation is an illusion.

Type
Chapter
Information
Fundamental Questions in Cross-Cultural Psychology , pp. 407 - 441
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adair, J. G. (2006). Creating indigenous psychologies: Insights from empirical social studies of the science of psychology. In Kim, U., Yang, K.-S. and Hwang, K.-K. (eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context (pp. 467–85). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allesch, C. G., and Billmann-Mahecha, E. (1990). Perspektiven der Kulturpsychologie. Heidelberg: Asanger.Google Scholar
Allwood, C. M., and Berry, J. W. (eds.) (2006). Origins and development of indigenous psychologies: An international analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 41, 243–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. (2008). Free will in scientific psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 14–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., and Dasen, P. R. (eds.) (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and application. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bickhard, M. H. (1992). Myths of science: Misconceptions of science in contemporary psychology. Theory and Psychology, 2, 321–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bischof, N. (1980). Aristoteles, Galilei, Kurt Lewin – und die Folgen. In Michaelis, W. (ed.), Bericht über den 32: Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Zürich 1980 (pp. 17–39). Göttingen: Verlag für Psychologie.Google Scholar
Boesch, E. E. (1951). Die Gewohnheit und das Unbewusste. Saarbrücken: Universitas Universitatis Saraviensis, 1, 110–13.Google Scholar
Boesch, E. E. (1971). Zwischen zwei Wirklichkeiten: Prolegomena zu einer ökologischen Psychologie. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
Boesch, E. E. (1976). Psychopathologie des Alltags: zur Ökopsychologie des Handelns und seiner Störungen. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
Boesch, E. E. (1979). Kultur und Handlung. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
Boesch, E. E. (1991). Symbolic action theory and cultural psychology. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boring, E. G. (1929/1957). The History of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, vol. I: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Branco, A. U., and Valsiner, J. (1997). Changing methodologies: A co-constructivist study of goal orientations in social interactions. Psychology and Developing Societies, 9, 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, P. (2002). Context in context. Common Knowledge, 8, 152–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1996). Can we overcome worldview incommensurability/relativity in trying to understand the other? In Jessor, R., Shweder, R. A. and Colby, A. (eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 153–74). John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Mental Health and Development.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cassirer, E. (1944). An essay on man. An introduction to a philosophy of human culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chasiotis, A. (1998). Natürliche Selektion und Individualentwicklung. In Keller, H. (ed.), Lehrbuch Entwicklungspsychologie (pp. 171–206). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
Christopher, J. C. (2005). Moral visions of developmental psychology. In Slife, B. D., Reber, J. S. and Richardson, F. C. (eds.), Critical thinking about psychology: Hidden assumptions and plausible alternatives (pp. 207–231). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
Christopher, J. C., and Bickhard, M. H. (2007). Culture, self and identity: Interactivist contributions to a metatheory for cultural psychology. Culture and Psychology, 13, 259–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, M. (1988). Cross-cultural research in the socio-historical tradition. Human Development, 31, 137–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
D'Andrade, R. G. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. In Shweder, R. A. and LeVine, R. (eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 88–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dasen, P. R., and Heron, A. (1981). Cross-cultural tests of Piaget‘s theory. In Triandis, H. C. and Heron, A. (eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (vol. IV, pp. 295–342). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, reasons, and causes. Journal of Philosophy, 60, 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dennet, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. New York: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Dilthey, W. (1894/1968). Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie. In Dilthey, W. (ed.), Gesammelte Schriften: Die geistige Welt – Einleitung in die Philosophie des Lebens: Abhandlung zur Grundlegung der Geisteswissenschaften (vol. V, pp. 139–240). Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H. (1970). Methodenprobleme der kulturvergleichenden Psychologie. Saarbrücken: SSIP-Schriften.Google Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H. (1979). A metamethodological evaluation of psychological theories from a cross-cultural perspective. In Eckensberger, L. H., Lonner, W. J. and Poortinga, Y. H. (eds.), Cross-cultural contributions to psychology (pp. 255–75). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H. (1990). From cross-cultural psychology to cultural psychology. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 12, 37–52.Google Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H. (1993). Zur Beziehung zwischen den Kategorien des Glaubens und der Religion in der Psychologie. In Gamkrelidze, T. V. (ed.), Beiträge zum Dialog der Wissenschaften aus den Partneruniversitäten Praha, Saarbrücken, Sofia, Tbilissi und Warszawa (pp. 49–104). Tbilisi: Universitätsdruck.Google Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H. (1995). Activity or action: Two different roads towards an integration of culture into psychology?Culture and Psychology, 1, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H. (1996). Agency, action and culture: Three basic concepts for cross-cultural psychology. In Pandey, J., Sinha, D. and Bhawuk, D. P. S. (eds.), Asian contributions to cross-cultural psychology (pp. 72–102). New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H. (2001). Psychology of action theory. In Smelser, N. J. and Baltes, P. B. (eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences (vol. I, pp. 45–9). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H. (2002). Paradigms revisited: From incommensurability to respected complementarity. In Keller, H., Poortinga, Y. H. and Schölmerich, A. (eds.), Biology, culture, and development: Integrating diverse perspectives (pp. 341–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H. (2006). Contextualizing moral judgment: Challenges of interrelating the normative (ought judgments) and the descriptive (knowledge of facts), the cognitive and the affective. In Smith, L. and Vonèche, J. (eds.), Norms in human development (pp.141–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H. (2010). Kulturvergleichende Psychologie, indigene Psychologien und Kulturpsychologie: Eine harmonische oder disharmonische Familienbeziehung? Bemerkungen aus Sicht der Entwicklungspsychologie. In Mayer, B. and Kornadt, H.-J. (eds.), Psychologie – Kultur – Gesellschaft (pp. 175–212). Wiesbaden VS: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H., and Burgard, P. (1983). The cross-cultural assessment of normative concepts: Some considerations on the affinity between methodological approaches and preferred theories. In Irvine, S. H. and Berry, J. W. (eds.), Human assessment and cultural factors (pp. 459–80). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H., and Keller, H. (1998). Menschenbilder und Entwicklungskonzepte. In Keller, H. (ed.), Lehrbuch Entwicklungspsychologie (pp. 11–56). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H., and Plath, I. (2003). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des ‘variablenorientierten’ Kulturvergleichs: Von der Kulturvergleichenden Psychologie zur Kulturpsychologie. In Kaelble, H. and Schriewer, J. (eds.), Vergleich und Transfer, Komparatistik in den Sozial-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften (pp. 55–99). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H., and Reinshagen, H. (1980). Kohlbergs Stufentheorie der Entwicklung des Moralischen Urteils: Ein Versuch ihrer Reinterpretation im Bezugsrahmen handlungstheoretischer Konzepte. In Eckensberger, L. and Silbereisen, R. K. (eds.), Entwicklung sozialer Kognition: Modelle, Theorie, Methoden, Anwendung (pp. 65–131). Stuttgart, Germany: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
Eckensberger, L. H., Krewer, B., and Kasper, E. (1984). Simulation of cultural change by cross-cultural research: Some metamethodological considerations. In McCluskey, K. A. and Reese, H. W. (eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Historical and generational effects in life-span human development (pp. 73–107). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Atlantic Highlands: Humanity Press.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1923). Das Ich und das Es. Leipzig: Internationaler Psycho-analytischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Frezzo, M. (2004). The ambivalent role of psychology and psychoanalysis. In Lee, R. E. and Wallerstein, I. M. (eds.), Overcoming the two cultures: Science versus the humanities in the modern world system (pp. 7–86). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publications.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1983). Dichte Beschreibung: Bemerkungen zu einer deutenden Theorie von Kultur. In Geertz, C. (ed.), Dichte Beschreibung: Beiträge zum Verstehen kultureller Systeme (pp. 7–43). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gehlen, A. (1978). Der Mensch: Seine Natur und seine Stellung in der Welt. Wiesbaden: Aula.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergen, K., Gulerce, A., Misra, G., and Lock, A. (1996). Psychological science in cultural context. American Psychologist, 51, 496–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graumann, C. F. (1996). Wollen und können – Überlegungen zu deren Wechselwirkung. In Cranach, M. and Foppa, K. (eds.), Freiheit des Entscheidens und Handelns: Ein Problem der nomologischen Psychologie (pp. 70–85). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Graumann, C. F. (2000). Kontext als Problem der Psychologie. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 208, 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, P., and Bruner, J. (1966). Culture and cognitive growth. International Journal of Psychology, 1, 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulerce, A. (1997). Change in the process of change: Coping with indeterminism. In Fogel, A., Lyra, M. A. and Valsiner, J. (eds.), Process of change and indeterminism (pp. 39–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Plenum.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2003). The future of human nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2006). The divided West. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hare, B. (2007). From nonhuman to human mind: What changed and why?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 60–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heron, A., and Kroeger, E. (1981). Introduction to developmental psychology. In Triandis, H. C. and Heron, A. (eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (vol. IV, pp. 1–15). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Herskovits, M. G. (1948). Man and his works. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Hudson, B. B., Barakat, M. K., and Forge, R. (1959). Problems and methods in cross-cultural research. Journal of Social Issues, 15, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulswit, M. (2002). From cause to causation: A Peircean perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahoda, G. (1986). A cross-cultural perspective on developmental psychology. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 417–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahoda, G. (1988). Critical notes and reflections on ‘social representations’. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janet, P. (1913). Automatisme: L'automatisme psychologique. Paris: Alcan.Google Scholar
Janich, P. (2006). Die Heterogonie der Zwecke als Problem der Psychologie. In Jüttemann, G. (ed.), Wilhelm Wundts anderes Erbe: Ein Missverständnis löst sich auf (pp. 88–101). Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Jüttemann, G. (2006). Wilhelm Wundt: Der missverstandene Geisteswissenschaftler. In Jüttemann, G. (ed.), Wilhelm Wundts anderes Erbe: Ein Missverständnis löst sich auf (pp. 13–30). Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Kanitschneider, B. (1981). Wissenschaftstheorie der Naturwissenschaften. Berlin: Sammlung Göschen de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, E. (1781). Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Prolegomena, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft.
Keller, H. (1997). Evolutionary approaches. In Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H. and Pandey, J. (eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychological, vol. I: Theory and Method (pp. 215–56). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Kim, U., and Berry, J. W. (eds.) (1993). Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 30–43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kim, U., and Park, Y. S. (2006). The scientific foundation of indigenous and cultural psychology. In Kim, U., Yang, K.-S. and Hwang, K.-K. (eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context (pp. 27–48). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, U., Yang, K.-S., and Hwang, K.-K. (eds.) (2006). Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krewer, B. (1990). Psyche and culture – Can a culture-free psychology take into account the essential features of the species homo sapiens?Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognitive Development, 12, 24–37.Google Scholar
Krewer, B., and Eckensberger, L. H. (1990). Cultural identity and political events. In Keats, D. M., Munro, D. and Mann, L. (eds.), Heterogeneity in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 216–31). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd edn). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1971). History of science and its rational reconstructions. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 8, 9–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, R. E., and Wallerstein, I. (2004). Introduction: The two cultures. In Lee, R. E. and Wallerstein, I. (eds.), Overcoming the two cultures: Science versus the humanities in the modern world system (pp. 1–5). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publications.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1930/31). Der Übergang von der aristotelischen zur galileischen Denkweise in Biologie und Psychologie. Erkenntnis, 1, 421–460. (Reprinted: Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libet, B. (1999). Do we have free will?Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 47–57.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Machado, A., Lourenco, O., and Silva, F. J. (2000). Facts, concepts and theories: The shape of psychology's epistemic triangle. Behavior and Philosophy, 28, 1–40.Google Scholar
Mack, W. (2006). Wundts programmatisches Erbe. In Jüttemann, G. (ed.), Wilhelm Wundts anderes Erbe: Ein Missverständnis löst sich auf (pp. 232–243). Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Mahoney, M. J. (2004). Constructivism and why is it growing?Contemporary Psychology, 49, 360–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In Ogden, C. K and Richards, I. A. (eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 451–510). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Malpass, R. S., and Poortinga, Y. H, (1986). Strategies for design and analysis. In Lonner, W. J. and Berry, J. W. (eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 47–83). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Maturana, H., and Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H., and Varela, F. (1987). Der Baum der Erkenntnis. Bern: Scherz.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1991). Eine Philosophie der Biologie. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (2001). Die Autonomie der Biologie. BerliNews, 27 June.
Meixner, U. (2004). The two sides of being: A reassessment of psycho-physical dualism. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
Michell, J. (2000). Normal science, pathological science and psychometrics. Theory and Psychology, 10, 639–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mommsen, W. J. (eds.) (1988). Leopold von Ranke und die moderne Geschichtswissenschaft. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
Ng, S. H., and Liu, J. H. (2000). Cultural revolution in psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 289–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nsamenang, A. B. (1992). Human development in cultural context: A third world perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, C. K., and Richards, I. A. (eds.) (1994). The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge/Thoemme Press.Google Scholar
Overton, W. F. (1996). Relational-developmental theory: A psychology perspective. In Gorlitz, D., Harloff, H. J., Valsiner, J. and Mey, G. (eds.), Children, cities and psychological theories: Developing relationships (pp. 315–35). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In Mussen, P. H. (ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (vol. I, pp. 703–32). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H. (1997). Toward convergence? In Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H. and Pandey, J. (eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 347–87). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H., and Malpass, R. S. (1986). Making inferences from cross-cultural data. In Lonner, W. J. and Berry, J. W. (eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 17–46). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1970). Normal science and its dangers. In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 51–8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R., and Eccles, J. C. (1977). The self and its brain. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price-Williams, D. (1980). Toward the idea of a cultural psychology: A superordinate theme for study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 11, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primas, H. (1984). Elementare Quantenchemie. Stuttgart: Teubner.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. In Gunderson, K. (ed.), Language, mind and knowledge: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (vol. VII, pp. 131–93). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Radford, M. (2008). Complexity and truth in educational research. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40, 144–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranke, L., and Mommsen, W. J. (eds.) (1988). Leopold von Ranke und die moderne Geschichtswissenschaft. Stuttgart: Klett Cotta Verlag.Google Scholar
Ratner, C. (1991). Vygotsky's sociohistorical psychology and its contemporary applications. New York: Springer/Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reese, H. W., and Overton, W. F. (1970). Models of development and theories of development. In Goulet, L. R. and Baltes, P. B. (eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Research and theory (pp. 115–45). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rychlack, J. F. (1979). Discovering free will and personal responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rychlack, J. F. (1993). A suggested principle of complementarity for psychology: In theory, not method. American Psychologist, 48, 933–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, L. (1951). Die Neurosen und die dynamische Psychologie von Pierre Janet. Basel: Benno Schwabe.Google Scholar
Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., and Poortinga, Y. H. (eds.) (1990). Human behavior in global perspective. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural Psychology – what is it? In Stigler, J. W., Shweder, R. A. and Herdt, G. (eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 1–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, W. (2006). Vom Gehirn zum Bewusstsein. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Sinha, D. (1993). Indigenization of psychology in India and its relevance. In Kim, U. and Berry, J. W. (eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 30–43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Snow, C. P. (1963). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Straub, J. (2006). Understanding cultural differences: Relational hermeneutics and comparative analysis in cultural psychology. In Straub, J., Weidemann, D., Kölble, C. and Zielke, B. (eds.), Pursuit of meaning: Advances in cultural and cross-cultural psychology (pp. 163–213). Bielefeld: Transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teo, T. (2008). From speculation to epistemological violence in psychology. Theory and Psychology, 18, 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children‘s action. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H. and Pandey, J. (eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, vol. I: Theory and method (2nd edn, pp. 257–300). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Poortinga, Y. H. (1982). Cross-cultural generalization and universality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Poortinga, Y. H. (1990). A taxonomy of cultural differences. In Vijver, F. J. R. and Hutschemaekers, G. J. M. (eds.), The investigation of culture: Current issues in cultural psychology (pp. 91–114). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Vico, G. (1744/1968). The new science (trans. Bergin, T. G. and Fixch, M. H.). New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Volard, E. (1998). Evolutionary ecology of human reproduction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 347–74.Google Scholar
Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (ed.) (1985). Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1959). The evolution of culture: The development of civilization to the fall of Rome. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Williams, M. (2004). Context, meaning and truth. Philosophical Studies, 117, 107–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuketits, F. M. (1981). Biologie und Kausalität. Berlin: Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Wuketits, F. M. (1997). Soziobiologie: Die Macht der Gene und die Evolution sozialen Verhaltens. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wundt, W. (1888). Über Ziele und Wege der Völkerpsychologie. Philosophische Studien, 4, 1–27.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×