Why Ability Assessments Don't Cross Cultures
You Can't Take It With You
Why Ability Assessments Don't Cross Cultures
Patricia M. Greenfield University of California, Los Angeles
A central thesis of this article is that ability tests can be analyzed as items of symbolic culture. This theoretical perspective, based in cultural psychology, provides psychological researchers and clinicians with the tools to detect, correct, and avoid the cross-cultural misunderstandings that undermine the validity of ability tests applied outside their culture of origin. When testers use tests developed in their own culture to test members of a different culture, testees often do not share the presuppositions about values, knowledge, and communication implicitly assumed by the test. These cross-cultural issues have important relevance for ability testing in an ethnically diverse society.
~la
e thesis of this article is that tests of intelligence d cognitive ability are cultural genres (Cole, 85; Greenfield, in press; Lave, 1986). This thesis is identified with a theoretical perspective that has come to be known as cultural psychology (Bruner, 1990; Cole, 1990; Price-Williams, 1980; Shweder, 1990; Stigler, Shweder, & Herdt, 1990). I develop this thesis by showing how ability tests presuppose a particular cultural framework. Most important, I demonstrate that this framework is not universally shared. Therefore, when it comes to tests of ability and intelligence, it is often the case that " y o u can't take it with you." There is, however, an alternative point of view, briefly summarized as " y o u can take it with you." This view, generally identified with a perspective called crosscultural psychology (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997), is that ability tests are intrinsically transportable from one culture to another. With appropriate linguistic translation, administration by a "native" tester, and (less frequently) the provision of familiar content, the notion is that ability tests
Why Ability Assessments Don't Cross Cultures
Patricia M. Greenfield University of California, Los Angeles
A central thesis of this article is that ability tests can be analyzed as items of symbolic culture. This theoretical perspective, based in cultural psychology, provides psychological researchers and clinicians with the tools to detect, correct, and avoid the cross-cultural misunderstandings that undermine the validity of ability tests applied outside their culture of origin. When testers use tests developed in their own culture to test members of a different culture, testees often do not share the presuppositions about values, knowledge, and communication implicitly assumed by the test. These cross-cultural issues have important relevance for ability testing in an ethnically diverse society.
~la
e thesis of this article is that tests of intelligence d cognitive ability are cultural genres (Cole, 85; Greenfield, in press; Lave, 1986). This thesis is identified with a theoretical perspective that has come to be known as cultural psychology (Bruner, 1990; Cole, 1990; Price-Williams, 1980; Shweder, 1990; Stigler, Shweder, & Herdt, 1990). I develop this thesis by showing how ability tests presuppose a particular cultural framework. Most important, I demonstrate that this framework is not universally shared. Therefore, when it comes to tests of ability and intelligence, it is often the case that " y o u can't take it with you." There is, however, an alternative point of view, briefly summarized as " y o u can take it with you." This view, generally identified with a perspective called crosscultural psychology (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997), is that ability tests are intrinsically transportable from one culture to another. With appropriate linguistic translation, administration by a "native" tester, and (less frequently) the provision of familiar content, the notion is that ability tests
References: Aronson, E., & Bridgeman, D. (1979). Jigsaw groups and the desegregated classroom: In pursuit of common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 438-446. Beach, K. (1984). The role of external memory cues in learning to become a bartender. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 6(1 & 2), 42-43. Berry, J.W., & Bennett, J. A. (1992). Cree conceptions of cognitive competence. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 73-88. Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P.R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Boesch, E.E. (1996). The seven flaws of cross-cultural psychology. The story of a conversion. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 2-10. Boykin, A. W. (1996, August). The case of African-American inner-city schools. In R. Serpell & B. Nsamenang (Convenors), Basic education for the modern world: Alternatives to Western cultural hegemony. Quebec City, Quebec, Canada: International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development. Boykin, A.W., & Toms, E D. (1985). Black child socialization: A O c t o b e r 1997 ° A m e r i c a n Psychologist conceptual framework. In H.P. McAdoo & J.L. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: Social, educational, and parental environments (pp. 33-52). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bruner, J. S. (1965). The growth of mind. American Psychologist, 20, 1007-1017. Bruner, J.S. (1990). Culture and human development: A new look. Human Development, 33, 344-355. Colby, A., Jessor, R., & Shweder, R. (Eds.). (1996). Ethnography and human development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cole, M. (1985). Mind as a cultural achievement. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing: Eighty-Fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Pt. 2, pp. 218249). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cole, M. (1990). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline? In J. J. Bergman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (Vol. 37, pp. 279-336). Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D. W. (1971). The cultural context of learning and thinking. New York: Basic Books. Dague, P. (1972). Development, application and interpretation of tests for use in French-speaking black Africa and Madagascar. In L. J. C. Cronbach & P. J. D. Drenth (Eds.), Mental tests and cultural adaptation (pp. 63-74). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Dasen, P. R. (1984). The cross-cultural study of intelligence: Piaget and the Baoul6. In P. S. Fry (Ed.), Changing conceptions of intelligence and intellectual functioning: Current theory and research (pp. 107134). New York: North-Holland. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1994). Socializing young children in MexicanAmerican families: An intergenerational perspective. In P. M. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 55-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Duranti, A., & Ochs, E. (1986). Literacy instruction in a Samoan village. In B. Schieffelin & T. Gilmore (Eds.), Acquisition of literacy: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 213-232). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Flavell, J. H., Green, E, & Flavell, E. R. (1987). Development of knowledge about the appearance-reality distinction. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51,(1, Serial No. 212). Glick, J. (1968, February). Cognitive style among the Kpelle of Liberia. Paper presented at the meeting on Cross-Cultural Cognitive Studies, American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Greenfield, E M. (1966). On culture and conservation. In J. S. Bruner, R. R. Olver, & E M. Greenfield (Eds.) Studies in cognitive growth (pp. 225-256). New York: Wiley. Greenfield, E M. (1972). Oral or written language: The consequences for cognitive development in Africa, the United States and England. Language and Speech, 15, 169-178. Greenfield, E M. (1997). Culture as process: Empirical methodology for cultural psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., Vol. l, pp. 301-346). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Greenfield, E M. (in press). The cultural evolution of IQ. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Intelligence on the rise? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Greenfield, E M., & Bruner, J. S. (1969). Culture and cognitive growth. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 633-660). Chicago: Rand McNally. Greenfield, E M., & Childs, C. E (1977a). Understanding sibling concepts: A developmental study of kin terms in Zinacantan. In P. Dasen (Ed.), Piagetian psychology: Cross-cultural contributions (pp. 335358). New York: Gardner Press. Greenfield, P. M., & Childs, C. P. (1977b). Weaving, color terms, and pattern representation: Cultural influences and cognitive development among the Zinacantecos of Southern Mexico. lnteramerican Journal of Psychology, 11, 23-48. Greenfield, P.M., & Cocking, R.R. (1994). Cross-cultural roots of minority child development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenfield, P.M., Quiroz, B., & Raeff, C. (in press). Cross-cultural conflict and harmony in the social construction of the child. In S. Harkness, C. M. Raeff, & C. M. Super (Eds.), The social construction of the child: The nature of variability. New directions in child development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan 1123 (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 33: Pragmatics (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. Harkness, S., & Super, C. (1977). Why are African children so hard to test? In L. L. Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 285, 326-331. Harkness, S., Super, C., & Keefer, C. (1992). Culture and ethnicity. In M. D. Levine, W. B. Carey, & A. C. Crocker (Eds.), Developmentalbehavioral pediatrics (2nd ed., pp. 103-108). Philadelphia: Saunders. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Herrnstein, R.J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture 's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kihlstrom, J. E (1995, June). From the subject 's point of view: The experiment as conversation and collaboration between investigator and subject. Keynote address presented at Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, New York. Kim, U., & Choi, S-H. (1994). Individualism, collectivism, and child development: A Korean perspective. In P.M. Greenfield & R.R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 227-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lave, J. (1986). Experiments, tests, jobs, and chores. In K. Borman & J. Reisman (Eds.), Becoming a worker (pp. 140-158). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lonner, W. J., & Adamapolous, J. (1997). Culure as antecedent to behavior. In J. W. Berry, Y. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Theoretical and methodological perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 43-83). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Lopez, S. R. (in press). Testing ethnic minority children. In B. B. Wollman (Ed.), The encyclopedia of psychology, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis. New York: Henry Holt. Madsen, M. C., & Lancy, D. E (1981). Cooperative and competitive behavior: Experiments related to ethnic identity and urbanization in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 12, 389408. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Neisser, U. (1976). General academic and artificial intelligence. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 135-146). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nerlove, S., & Snipper, A. S. (1981). Cognitive consequences of cultural opportunity. In R. H. Munro, R. L. Munro, & B. B. Whiting (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural human development (pp. 423-474). New York: Garland. Nunes, T. N., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Packer, M. (1995, March). The logic of interpretive inquiry. Presentation at the Toward a Cultural Psychology of Development symposium, Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1962). Le ddveloppement des quantit~s physiques chez l 'enfant (2nd rev. ed.). Neuch~tel, Switzerland: Delachaux & NiestlC Poortinga, Y. H. (1989). Equivalence of cross-cultural data: An overview of basic issues. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 737756. Price-Williams, D. (1980). Toward the idea of cultural psychology. A superordinate theme for study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 11, 75-88. Quiroz, B., & Greenfield, P. M. (in press). Cross-cultural value conflict: Removing a barrier to Latino school achievement. In R. Paredes & K. Gutierrez (Eds.), Latino academic achievement. Berkeley: University of California, Latino Eligibility Task Force. Raeff, C., Greenfield, P., & Quiroz, B. (in press). Conceptualizing interpersonal relationships in the cultural contexts of individualism and collectivism. In S. Harkness, C. M. Raeff, & C. M. Super (Eds.), The social construction of the child: The nature of variability. New directions in child development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reese, L., Balzano, S., Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (1995). The concept of educaci6n: Latino family values and American schooling. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 57-81. Rogoff, B., & Morelli, G. (1989). Perspectives on children 's development from cultural psychology. American Psychologist, 44, 343348. Saxe, G. B., & Moylan, T. (1982). The development of measurement operations among the Oksapmin of Papua New Guinea. Child Development, 53, 1242-1248. Sensales, G., & Greenfield, P. M. (1995). Attitudes toward computers, science, and technology: A cross-cultural comparison between students in Rome and Los Angeles. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 229-242. Serpell, R. (1993). The significance of schooling: Life journeys in an African society. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology: What is it? In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 130-204). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Stigler, J.W., Shweder, R.A., & Herdt, G. (Eds.). (1990). Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Sudarkasa, N. (1988). Interpreting the African heritage in Afro-American family organization. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (2nd ed., pp. 27-43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tapia Uribe, E M., LeVine, R. A., & LeVine, S. E. (1994). Maternal behavior in a Mexican community: The changing environments of children. In P. M. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 41-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Triandis, H. (1995, July). Psychology and culture: The search for appropriate paradigms. Discussion in symposium convened by J. Adamopoulos, European Congress of Psychology, Athens, Greece. van de Vijver, E J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of cross-cultural research. In J. W. Berry, Y. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Theoretical and methodologicalperspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 257-300). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Wober, M. (1974). Towards an understanding of the Kiganda concept of intelligence. In J.W. Berry & P.R. Dasen (Eds.), Culture and cognition (pp. 261-280). London: Methuen. 1124 O c t o b e r 1997 • A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t