The Intersection of Psychology and Anthropology
1. Introduction to Psychology and Anthropology
This collection of essays addresses the rapidly developing areas of the intersection of psychology and anthropology. The introduction aims to create a basis of cultural understanding in a psychological mindset. It provides a historic and current foundation by citing specific research work in the six areas of psychological study. It helps to form more practice into the field of cultural psychology, which argues a need for focused understanding of other cultures through the study of their specific psychological traits, and also a broader study into areas such as social, biological, and developmental psychology for anthropological understanding. This chapter will also help to direct readers into some areas of psychological study, to explore psychological research methods, and to look at specific cultures through psychological perspectives. This will provide a springboard for expanding psychological studies into the many varied cultures of the world. Again, it will be invaluable for students of psychological levels who aim to make some more firm connections between psychology and anthropology, and for those in the field of anthropology who seek to understand more about themselves and others through culture-focused psychological lenses.
2. Key Concepts in Psychology and Anthropology
Since we live in a multicultural society, the effects of acculturation experienced by immigrant groups are of interest to today’s psychologists. Acculturative processes have a potential impact on the mental health of individuals and groups. This brings the study of cultural influence full circle back around to its interest in psychological processes.
One study demonstrated the effect of Japanese traditional housing on memory. The memory capacity of Japanese school children was compared before and after moving from traditional to western-style housing. It was found that the spatial memory of the children decreased as a result of westernization. This effect on the cognitive ability of individuals has significant implications for anthropological study.
Culture is a central concept in anthropology, since an analogy can be drawn from the way culture is transmitted through society to the way that psychological processes are transmitted to individuals. Culture therefore plays a key role in delineating the boundary between anthropology and psychology. The cross-cultural psychologists’ focus has been to determine whether psychological phenomena are universal or whether they are culturally relative. Psychologists have discovered behavior and cognitive processes that appear to be universal, and others that are unique to particular cultures. Comparative psychologists place emphasis on the significance of universal features, and differential psychologists emphasize the significant differences between cultures. These findings hold wide relevance to anthropology, as they suggest that cultural differences will, at some level, affect the mental processes and behavior of individuals.
3. Theoretical Approaches in Psychology and Anthropology
This diverse range of theories employed within our own discipline provides a topical example of the anthropological contests viewing the diversity of human experience. At one extreme, contemporary psychological and psychiatric theory is seeking a biological understanding of human thought and behavior. Frameworks such as cognitive psychology and biological psychiatry posit universal causal structures for both normal and abnormal human behaviors. On the other hand, medical anthropology maintains that to understand the experiences of illness and healing in different cultures, it is necessary to understand the cultural frameworks in which sickness is given meaning and healing is given direction. From a different tack, social and developmental psychologies all seek to understand the construction of self and identity, but often these have been within a framework that presupposes a Western individual self with universal applicability. Any theories which attempt to incorporate anthropology into the broader frameworks of psychology or psychiatry will be fulfilling a vital role in facilitating understanding between the two disciplines.
How does contemporary psychological theory fit with Lewis Henry Morgan’s model of unilineal evolution? The paradigms of modern psychology and sociology evolved from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These disciplines have been dominated by Western academic views, but the recent rise of anthropology in these same cultures has questioned the universality of contemporary psychological theory.
4. Methods and Research in Psychology and Anthropology
However, some psychologists argue that their discipline is not far from the traditional scientific method and aspire to a unified framework for doing quantitative causal testing. This is seemingly rare in comparison to the rest of the discipline.
A common methodology in psychological research is to use an undergraduate sample of the population, with the belief that the results can be generalized to the whole of humanity. Psychological research can be both quantitative, where data is expressed in numbers and statistics, and qualitative, where the data does not take a form that is easily amenable to statistical analysis. This data is then analyzed in a statistical and/or content analysis in an attempt to test the hypotheses.
Psychological data is usually gathered in the form of direct responses or measurable behavior, hence the predominant use of surveys and controlled laboratory experiments. This is to test out hypotheses formulated from theories, which tend to be on the more specific side. For example, a social psychologist may try to test a theory that prejudiced individuals are more likely to distort ambiguous intergroup behavior involving an outgroup member in a way that confirms their stereotypes. This can be done by setting up an experiment to test the memory of both prejudiced and less-prejudiced individuals after exposure to the behavior.
Psychologists and anthropologists often work with quite different research methods and vary in theoretical orientation. Psychologists have been said to be more focused on the information being gathered to aid in understanding human behavior and experience, while anthropologists focus on the holistic aspects of the information being gathered. The research methods vary because of the different targets of psychological and anthropological inquiry.
5. Applications and Future Directions in Psychology and Anthropology
The logic of an interest in applications and directions is often implicitly assumed but insufficiently considered. We have (mainly) looked at data and problems from the two sides of various dichotomies: psychology/anthropology; cross-cultural psychology/psychology; applied/pure; etic/emic; controlled/naturalistic; uni-disciplinary/multi-disciplinary. Our account occasionally takes the form of advising one or the other side of the dichotomy to learn from the other in interpreting or generating hypotheses setting up research designs. This is too ad hoc a process. We need to consider what is a viable long-term strategy for a bi-discipline. We have seen the proximity of anthropology to multicultural and cross-cultural psychology. To make this a viable strategy, anthropology should start to train more “professional” ethnographers and less “recruits. This would involve a long-term change to the character of anthropology as a vocation, and the provision of an alternative career structure for a professional cadre. A growing presence of an informed indigenous scholarship would guide cross-cultural and multicultural research in psychology and policy in directions more valuable to the peoples who are its potential subjects. Another specific joint strategy is the further development of dentalulation in psychopathology. Primarily, this could be one of the bad places in multicultural research in psychology of a need to netic a emic. For etic, there are heuristics of symptom recognition and diagnosis. This works best to come up with categories whose limitations are known in cultures to and m to o the problems they indicate. (Eg the detailed schizophrenia diagnosis in a p of ve countries and US UK of post-traumatic stress). The problem often lies in act tailed dentalation higher as in the given exa e otal contra psychological information to symptoms c e to co completed gen alogical dent of what we hope is a comparable psychological condition. A professional category and clear future directions can best come from dialogue between anthropology and the various “cultural” or ethnic psychologies regarding mental health problems of particular immigrant or minority sg r. We have seen existing substantial bodies of research two aren psychologies make almost indemp dent s ates to parallel problems of indent andi it may be bring them together. And finally, here is a place where we can hope that the pooling of alternative com tary c ultural is s can lead to sa d up aetol but less frequent inter d ibetan etween anthropologist and cross-cultural c in the past.
