Child Development, September/October 2000, Volume 71, Number 5, Pages 1159–1161 Trade-Offs in the Study of Culture and Development: Theories, Methods, and Values Fred Rothbaum, Martha Pott, Hiroshi Azuma, Kazuo Miyake, and John Weisz The commentators are unanimous in their support for our general orientation to culture and development, and for the pathways we have identified, and they suggest ways to enrich our approach to theory, methods, and values. We view their main suggestions as relating to trade-offs: between theories that highlight generaliza- tions or exceptions; between methods that rely on one-, two-, or multiculture studies; and between values in- volving individuation or accommodation. Here, we describe ways to find an optimal balance in each instance. Commentaries on our prior article in this issue (Roth- baum, Pott, Azuma, Miyake, & Weisz, 2000) reflect a desire for the kind of synthesis of cultural research on development that we suggest. We are encouraged by the interest in synthesis among this extraordinary group of cultural psychologists, and we are inspired by their important elaborations of our ideas: Fogel’s (Fogel, 2000) call for longitudinal developmental pathway research, Kitayama’s (Kitayama, 2000) no- tion that the U.S. and Japanese experience of self are nurtured by different relationships, Lebra’s (Lebra, 2000) suggestion that our pathways differ in how they prepare children for stress and intimacy in adult- hood, Lewis’s (Lewis, 2000) distinction between the means and content of socialization, and Tobin’s (To- bin, 2000) speculations about how our pathways vary across generations and how they differ in old age. While they support our approach, the commenta- tors point to three possible limitations: exceptions to our proposed pathways, our emphasis on two- culture comparisons, and our suggestion that each developmental pathway necessarily entails problems in adaptation. We believe the issue of trade-offs is central to all three concerns. Below we consider each set of trade-offs and provide suggestions about how to find an optimal balance in each instance. EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROPOSED PATHWAYS The commentators are concerned that we may be over-generalizing, and they point to exceptions and complexities beyond those we discussed. For exam- ple, Fogel cites evidence of symbiotic harmony in the United States and Tobin cites evidence of generative tension in Japan, counter to our claim that these qual- ities are far more characteristic of Japanese and U.S. pathways, respectively. Lebra notes that conflict, which we also associate with the United States more than Japan, is alive and well in Japan, but takes differ- ent forms (i.e., it is more internalized, occurs at later ages, and involves third parties). We believe that this search for exceptions is a healthy process, essential for the continued enrich- ment of theory. Qualifications are the best antidote to over-generalization. Indeed, our own ideas about pathways came about by first examining prevailing generalizations about Japanese–U.S. differences in development, then gathering relevant evidence, and finally articulating revised or new generalizations that better fit the facts. The dialectic between thesis (generalization) and antithesis (exceptions), will ulti- mately lead to the most sophisticated models of de- velopmental pathways. EMPHASIS ON TWO-CULTURE COMPARISON In addition to calling for closer scrutiny of exceptions, the commentators question whether two-culture comparisons are optimal. They call for more in-depth, one-culture studies and they call for multi-culture comparisons. We briefly note some pros and cons of each approach. One-culture studies are typically qualitative, ethno- graphic inquiries that provide rich, in- depth descrip- tions of development and its individual and situa- tional variation. Because these studies adopt an emic approach, relying on indigenous reports, they inspire valuable new insights that challenge prevailing theo- ries of development. A one-culture study would be optimal for studying Tobin’s notion that there are dif- © 2000 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2000/7105-0007 Response to commentaries on Rothbaum, Pott, Azuma, Miy- ake, & Weisz, “The Development of Close Relationships in Japan and the United States: Paths of Symbiotic Harmony and Gener- ative Tension.”