A Bibliometric Analysis of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Bibliometric statistics concerning the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (JCCP) over the period 1977-1993 are reported. Compared to other journals on cross-cultural psychology, the impact factor of JCCP has been fairly high over this 17-year period. The average impact factor ofjournals publishing exclusively or mainly cross-cultural studies is stable. The overall numbers of journals that are quoted in JCCP is high, yet most references (apart from self-references) are to social psychological journals, particularly Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Journal of Social Psychology. The pattern is similar for the journals in which JCCP is quoted.

A Historical Analysis of Empirical Studies Published in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1970-2004

Based on a random sample of 200 empirical articles, the present study made a historical analysis of the contents of Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology ( JCCP) in the period between 1970 and 2004. In comparison to older studies, recent studies tended to be more social-psychological, and more often employed self-reports, based the choice of cultures on theoretical grounds, and adopted a hypothesis-testing approach. A persistent strong focus on cross-cultural differences and a simultaneous underrating of cross-cultural similarities was found. The majority of studies in which only cross-cultural differences were expected, reported differences and similarities. Methodological and conceptual improvements characterized the past 35 years of publications in JCCP.

Crisis? What crisis? Cross-cultural psychology’s appropriation of cultural psychology

Whereas cross-cultural psychology and cultural psychology have been distinguished as separate projects for decades, talk about their possible collaboration is becoming increasingly common. Several scholars have described their differences as essentially non-oppositional and the latest Handbook of Cultural Psychology combines articles from both research traditions. This paper scrutinizes these consolidating efforts first by tracing historically how the two accounts of culture (cultural and cross-cultural) developed, and second, by examining whether their long-standing epistemological premises allow for the kind of collaboration advocated by some scholars. We argue that attempts to combine the disciplines come primarily from cross-cultural psychologists who appear increasingly challenged by cultural and indigenous psychological approaches. Attempts at a merger have been twofold: on the one hand, cross-cultural psychologists who seek to preserve the status of their discipline have expanded its scope to include cultural theorists; on the other hand, cross-cultural scholars persuaded by cultural theories are creating a new blend of ‘experimental cultural psychology’ that seeks to accommodate both programs. These proposals, in our view, exemplify a cross-cultural discipline in crisis, struggling to account for a growing cultural psychology. We conclude that the overlapping interests between cross-cultural and cultural scholars make this a propitious time for cross-disciplinary dialogue.

The Most Recent Years: The Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2004—2009

Recent trends in the content and characteristics of articles published in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology from 2004 through 2009 are reviewed, completing the picture of the first 40 of publication. Consistent with earlier trends, empirical comparative studies are seen most frequently, self-report social behavior studies are predominate, and the majority of researchers are from the United States and English-speaking countries. Increased statistical and methodological sophistication continue to strengthen cross-cultural research and support the centrality of culture in psychology.

Cross-cultural measurement of experience: Taiwanese and Americans' peak performance, peak experience, misery, failure, sport, and average events

To compare Taiwanese and Americans on selected experiential personality dimensions, the Experience Questionnaire was translated and tested with 27 Taiwanese in an American university. Descriptions by 129 Taiwanese of peak performance, peak experience, misery, failure, sport, and average events were compared with those made by 123 Americans. Analysis of variance with repeated measures of factors indicated that both samples uniformly characterized processes of peak performance as full focus with clarity of self in process. The Taiwanese considered failure more significant than the Americans who denied clarity of self in misery and failure and more generally endorsed peak experience than the Taiwanese. The study extends the credibility of experience: experiential events can simultaneously have cross-cultural generality and inner processes that are culturally sensitive.