Universality
Psychological research aims to be applicable to everyone, in other words, universality is what researchers strive for. However, all researchers are accustomed to their own beliefs and values that have been influenced by the social environment in which they live. Although we try to aim for universality – which is developing theories that apply to everyone despite gender and cultural differences – this is often threatened by gender and culture bias. These biases undermine psychology’s strict stance on aiming to create theories and studies that can be applied to everyone.
When discussing gender bias, we find that there are two distinct types: alpha and beta bias.
Alpha Bias
Alpha bias involves exaggerating or overestimating the differences between the sexes. Differences that are perceived as enduring, fixed, and inevitable can lead to misinterpretations of the behaviour of one sex, resulting in that sex being viewed as inferior. Alpha bias is likely to devalue females more than males. For example, Sigmund Freud saw men as the superior sex and did all of his research on men. Freud’s theories reflected the culture of men who were seen as powerful. He viewed femininity as ‘failed masculinity’ – and he exaggerated the differences between men and women. Josselson (1988) claims that in Freud’s theories women are seen as inferior as they are jealous of men’s penises (penis envy), and cannot go through gender and moral development as well as men do.
Beta Bias
On the other hand, beta bias ignores, minimises or underestimates the differences between men and women. This often occurs when female participants are not included – research findings are assumed to apply to them regardless. For example, this can be seen in research on the fight or flight stress hormone. It was found later that female animals show ‘tend or befriend’ as a response to a stressful or threatening situation. Biological research is usually conducted with male animals, and therefore what is true for males also becomes true for females. The fight and flight stress hormone study proves that this is not the case.
Androcentrism
A consequence of beta bias is androcentrism. This happens when our understanding of what counts as being ‘normal’ behaviour is drawn from research that involves all-male samples. Behaviour that deviates from this standard is likely to be judged as ‘abnormal’ by comparison. This leads to female behaviour being misunderstood and pathologised – meaning that it is taken as a sign of a psychological instability or disorder. For example, many feminists have objected to the diagnostic category pre-menstrual syndrome (PMS) as it medicalises female emotions.
Culture Bias
Similar to gender bias, culture bias also undermines psychology’s claim to be universal. Culture bias is the interpretation of a behaviour based on norms and values of one’s own culture. Applying one’s own cultural standards to other cultures may lead to misunderstandings within research. Henrich et al coined the term ‘WEIRD’ – those most likely to be studied by psychologists are Westernised, Educated people that are in Industrialised, Rich Democracies. This indicates that individuals that fall under the category of ‘WEIRD’ are typically the ones that have their behaviours classified as societal norms.
Ethnocentrism
A form of culture bias is ethnocentrism.
This refers to a particular form of culture bias and it is a belief in the superiority of one’s own cultural group over another. It also involves the normalisation of one’s culture, and seeing others as abnormal. In psychological research, this may be communicated through a view that any behaviour which does not conform to the model (usually Western) is somehow deficient, unsophisticated or underdeveloped. According to Berry (1969), ethnocentrism is a product of an imposed etic approach within psychology – where western theories and research are expected to be universal. As a result, researchers often study a culture from the ‘outside’ and try to apply their own understanding and world view to it – often causing a bias. An example of this is Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation study. This is because she defined the typically American attachment style as ‘secure’ and the ones found in less proportions in American culture (but more prominent in others) were termed as ‘insecure’. The terminology here implies that the attachments prevalent in other cultures (for example, insecure resistant in Japan) are inferior and reinforces a cultural bias. Takahashi (1986) taking Strange Situation and using it in Japan is an etic approach. The terminology once again implies that Japanese children are inferior or less developed in comparison to American culture and children.
Cultural Relativism
However, the opposite of ethnocentrism is cultural relativism – the idea that all cultures are worthy of respect and that in studying another culture we need to try and understand the way that particular culture sees the world. Berry found that culturally relative theories use an ‘emic’ approach – cultures are studied from within, and attempts are made to identify behaviour and models that apply specifically to those cultures. For example, we can appreciate that we cannot use the western based DSM-5 to diagnose people from other cultures such as Africa or India. This is because in these cultures, for example, certain things may be considered as a divine gift from God, and therefore would not be seen as an abnormality. Whereas in the USA or UK, the things other cultures deem as normal can be seen as abnormal or even as a symptom of a mental disorder. Therefore, African or Indian cultures (for example) need a different diagnostic system. Thus, cultural relativism is needed to understand that the same ‘rules’ cannot be applied to all cultures.