Dasen, P. R. (2012). Emics and etics in cross-cultural psychology: towards a convergence in the study of cognitive styles. In T.M.S. Tchombe, A. B. Nsamenang, H. Keller & M. Fülöp (Eds.), Cross-cultural psychology: An Africentric perspective. (pp. 55-73). (Proceedings of the 4th Africa Region Conference of the IACCP, University of Buea, Cameroun, Aug. 1-8, 2009.) Limbe, Cameroun: Design House. (A Division of Bukhum Communications, Gainesville, Florida USA) C H A P T E R 4 ……………………………………………………………………………………… EMICS AND ETICS IN CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY: TOWARDS A CONVERGENCE IN THE STUDY OF COGNITIVE STYLES ……………………………………………………………………………………… Pierre Dasen Introduction Psychology, including cross-cultural psychology, as well as other social sciences including anthropology, are born and have grown up in the last century mainly in Europe and North America. Hence they are inculturated in the Western “minority” world, disregarding what Kagitçibasi (1996) has called the “majority word” in which most of the human populations live. As such, we cannot hold this against these sciences; after all, each one of us is born and raised in a particular group, of which we learn the rules and the tricks, and which gives us our identity. It only becomes a problem when we compare these rules and tricks to those of others, and believe that our own are better, if not the only valid ones, and when we try to set them up as models and impose them on others. Ethnocentrism is surely one of the most universal processes! How can we overcome it? Unfortunately, most textbooks of psychology are based on Western theories and research, and it is therefore difficult to decide what is and what is not appropriate in Africa. Until there are truly African textbooks of psychology, some elements of (cross-)cultural psychology should be useful. Cross-cultural psychology has attempted to overcome Western ethnocentrism. It draws attention to the fact that psychological theories that have been established empirically only on a minute fraction of humanity (if no longer on rats at least mainly on first year psychology students in the U.S.A.) cannot ipso facto be considered to be universally valid. By taking the existing theories and methods and testing their validity elsewhere, it is gradually able to establish which processes are really universal, and which are specific to particular cultural contexts. This is the so-called “etic” approach, transposing and seeking to generalise existing theories. However, if that were the only approach in cross-cultural psychology, it would also be ethnocentric through the choice of subject matter. What is also needed is to study psychological phenomena that originate in particular cultural contexts. This approach has been variously labelled as “emic”, or “cultural psychology”, or “indigenous psychology”, and comes close to anthropology and its dictate of cultural relativism. It is my view that these two goals are not mutually exclusive, but should be pursued in combination. Berry and Dasen (1974) had exactly this in mind when they defined the goals of cross-cultural psychology as being three-fold: 1) To test existing theories elsewhere; 2) To document diversity and discover new phenomena; 3) To compare the former and the latter in order to end up with a more universal psychology. Segall, Dasen, Berry and Poortinga (1999) later pointed out a fourth goal, that of “unconfounding” variables that are intrinsically linked if one carries out research in a single setting only. For example, in developmental psychology, if all children go to school and move up in the grades at about the same age, the variables of ontogenetic development (chronological age, maturation) and the