The Analysis and Criticism of the Arguments of Arnett on Focus on Issues of Context by Haeffel and His Colleagues

Haeffel and his colleagues believe that American Psychological Research is generalizable to other cultures. They agree that it’s a good idea to focus on issues of context, but they don’t think there are as many issues about generalizability and basic research as Arnett is thinking. Haeffel and his colleagues first mention the possible issue of generalizability. They are analyzing Arnett’s argument regarding this topic.

Arnett has noticed that there is a chance that American research is biased because of most participants in research being college undergraduates in America.

American college undergraduates might have some diversity, but maybe not as much as the entire world. But Haeffel et al believe that this problem of generalizability is overstated. They believe that there is a large amount of basic psychological occurrences that are easily distributed to other cultures. All people have common genes and brain functionings. Haeffel et al don’t think the argument that American culture is different from other cultures is enough.

Haeffel and his colleagues also criticize another argument of Arnett’s about basic psychological research. Arnett thinks that all psych research should focus more on individual cultures and their diversity rather than only basic psychological processes. He thinks that research focuses so much on basic processes it ignores important issues. Haeffel et al decided that such an opinion shows a misunderstanding of basic research. So their reaction was to acknowledge the questions about how to define science. They think that Arnett must believe that science is defined only by its use of nonexperimental designs and real-world problems; and therefore thinks that psych science is incomplete.

Get quality help now

WriterBelle

Verified

Proficient in: Focus

4.7 (657)

“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Arnett argues that Haeffel et al’s thinking that generalizability being overstated is invalid because it really is hard to generalize the entire population of the earth by just a few people in a couple of different cultures. Its really not that simple. Arnett wants psychology to adapt and change to focus more on its topic: humans. In his opinion, psychology has been focusing on trying to prove it’s a hard science.

I think that American psychological research is only partially generalizable to other cultures. I agree with Haeffel and his colleagues that there are basic human processes such as normal development, cognitive processes, and some aspects of perception and sensation that might have a chance at being generalizable. But there are cultural differences that really influence even basic processes as well as how to research and help with patients and psychological processes and the like. So Im going to focus the most on Arnett’s side of this issue: American research is not often applicable to other cultures. I think this partly because a lot of American research is in the lab, and is therefore not applicable to the real world.

Different cultures have different values, thought processes, history, and perceptions. There are areas where some behaviors and thought processes are considered normal, and other places those same behaviors or thoughts are considered abnormal and in need of attention with therapies and medication. So if someone from a different culture tries to go to a psychologist or psychiatrist who is focused on American research may not get the individualized help they need because of the different culture.

One of the arguments Haeffel uses is how Arnett might have faulty reasoning on science and isn’t thinking clearly on how to evaluate science. But I don’t think that is the point of this argument. This argument reminds me of how we should focus on respect and understanding. I doubt Arnett said that science only depends on the sample, type of research, or whether the design is basic or applied. I think he said that we shouldn’t only focus on basic science, and that we should think about individual experiences and cultures in order to try to help them as best as we can.