Talk:Cross-cultural psychology

At least a beginning
I requested an article on cross-cultural psychology this week, and as no one took up my request, I have decided to create one myself. Currently a stub, at least it is a beginning. ACEOREVIVED 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks. I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of changing your opening as it seemed to me to muddy the central point, as I understand it. This is that it is NOT a branch of psychology but rather an opening of the concepts of psychology, developed predominantly within Western (English?) speaking cultures, to data from other "cultures", whatever you define that term to mean. It is the expansion of psychology through an examination of the impact of sampling and observation biases on research outcomes. See: http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_82.asp Makes sense to me. Am I splitting hairs?? I have also added some balancing information, regarding the flaws that seem to undermine cross-cultural studies in this field, and in my view, in general, and the same regarding Hofstede's work. LookingGlass ~

Psychology from a non-Western perspective
So that this article does not come across as ethnocentric, it would be good to have various perspectives such as Asian psychology or the psychology of African-American blacks in this article. There are books in my university library on Asian psychology, and I may add to this article when I have more time. ACEOREVIVED 19:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixing a wiki-link
I have corrected the Wiki-link to the Big Five. I initially called this "the five-factor model" and if you go that website, you will see that I have proposed this is re-named as "the five-factor model", but in the mean time, I make that wiki-link refer to another Wikipedia article. ACEOREVIVED 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can the stub link be removed now?
I see that this is still classified as a stub. Do people now consider it long enough to be dropped from this classification? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Adopting this page
This poor page seems to have been orphaned and I'm hereby informally adopting it. Just to clarify, I am not doing this as an official member of anything. I'm in the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, but I'm not editing as its representative. I've joined the Wikiproject and I hope over time to provide coverage for the field and links to related articles for anyone who's interested in exploring it. Please contact me on my talk page if you would like to comment (or help).Shandong44 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've also created a Category:Cross-Cultural Psychology in Branches of Psychology. However, since I wasn't up on naming practices, I didn't realize that I shouldn't capitalize beyond the first word, so now when adding the category I have to capitalize everything or the wiki won't list it as a category. :-( Shandong44 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Plan
•	We will create a new subtopic on differences between cultures and how they resolve social conflict. An article by Grossman et al (2012) examines the differences between Japan and America and their methods of resolving conflict based on their wisdom of knowledge.

•	We want to provide information for the subheading “emotion judgments”. The subheading seems to be incomplete and our article by Huang et al. describes the differences between Asians and Americans and their perceptions of facial expressions. Their findings provide support for the notion that not all emotions are universally judged the same across cultures.

•	We are going to provide a citation and evidence under the “Etic and Emic” subheading for the pseudoetic approach used in cross-cultural psychology today. We will provide a reliable source, Fernando (2012), to define what the pseudoetic approach is and to also provide evidence for the claim that many psychologists use this approach in their cross-cultural research. Marger20 (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction Improvement
I thoroughly enjoyed this article and everything it had to offer. I would love to see a more compact version of the introduction. I felt that it was lengthy and unnecessarily detailed. Great article! Hallh12 (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)