Every human is like all other humans, some other humans, and no other human.
—Clyde Kluckhon
Human behavior is inextricably linked to the socio-cultural context through which it occurs. Much has already been written about culture’s influence on the psychology of its members and the intersection between different cultures. However, operational psychology, more than most other subspecialties in the field, confronts its practitioners with the challenge of conducting their craft across disparate cultures in a variety of contexts. This chapter explores cross-cultural issues relevant to operational practitioners. It begins with a discussion of culture; reviews the influence of cultural biases on our perceptions and understanding; and discusses the principles of acculturation, assimilation, cultural awareness, cultural competence, and other matters. Operational psychology activities are then described in terms of how they are shaped by culture. Finally, the chapter addresses ethical considerations involved when practicing inter- and intracultural operational psychology.
Culture is beyond the festivals, foods, and nuanced practices of a certain people group. Culture is the more automatic and implicit ideas, values, and processes that guide and structure practices, institutions, and comprehension within our environment. Past scholars have differed in how they have defined culture and what it encompasses. Some have tended to be very exclusive, while others have remained broad in its characterization (Christopher, Wendt, Marecek, & Goodman, 2014; Church, 2000). Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, and Nisbett (1998) argued that culture constitutes a belief system and value orientation that impacts social norms, customs, and practices. The American Psychological Association (APA) published practice guidelines regarding cross-cultural competence and defined the construct as “the embodiment of a worldview through learned and transmitted beliefs, values, and practices, including religious and spiritual traditions” (APA, 2014).
Before addressing the specific challenges faced by operational psychologists in navigating cross-cultural issues, it may be useful to identify and define the key terminology associated with culture and multiculturalism. Traditionally, two terms have been used to describe how we understand an individual’s behavior in the context of cultural influences: “emics” and “etics.” “Emics” are behaviors, beliefs, and customs that vary from culture to culture, while “etics” are those things that are assumed to be universal across cultures. This distinction is important because conflict and cultural bias often occur when we mistakenly apply etics onto emics. For example, when we assume that our own cultural values, beliefs, or behavior are universal (a case of etics) and consequently apply this cultural lens to members from a different culture, we may fail to recognize that their culture does not share our perspective, experience, or values (a case of emics). In other ways, we may attribute behavior to cultural factors when it is more appropriately attributed to non-cultural variables such as socioeconomic status, gender, and religious beliefs. This type of misattribution error is known as the cultural attribution fallacy (Hardin, Robitschek, Flores, Navarro, & Ashton, 2014). This fallacy impacts the assessment of certain factors more than others within operational psychology. For instance, the cultural attribution fallacy may impede the assessment of interpersonal style or personality. An operational psychologist may assess a candidate to have a low sociability and decreased warmth, but attribute these dimensions to an aspect of his or her culture rather than his or her personality or interpersonal style.
Cultural bias is common and often systemic. One such example is found among different cultural groups’ moral visions. Moral visions consist of the values or beliefs shared among a cultural group concerning its social or economic development (Christopher et al., 2014). For instance, some cultural groups have formed negative moral judgments around the following socio-cultural practices: child marriage, forced head-covering, and female circumcision. However, such practices are commonly accepted, if not embraced, in many cultures in Africa and the Middle East. In contrast, values promoting educational opportunities for women, the universality of human rights, and the decriminalization of homosexuality are commonly promoted among some cultural groups while they are not among others (Obeid, Chang, & Ginges, 2010). These differences spark heated debate among scholars concerning whether such practices represent cultural differences and norming that should be respected by those outside these cultural groups or if, instead, they illustrate violations of universal human liberty, international law, and moral dignity.
Culture-specific issues are often hard to separate from individual or ideographic behavior and more universal human nature. Hermeneutic cultural awareness is a concept that has emerged in recent years as an approach to understanding individual and group behavior from within a cultural context. This approach involves interpreting the meaning of an individual’s behavior (the hermeneutics) from within the context (the culture) of their everyday lived experience. From this perspective, the individual and his or her cultural context are inseparable. To understand the behavior of a given individual, we must first understand his or her culture and its influence on his or her lived experience (Christopher et al., 2014).
Psychologists have a steep hill to climb when it comes to cultural understanding and competence. There must be several considerations that include the moderating influences of acculturation, assimilation, cultural awareness, and cultural competence. Acculturation is a measure of the degree to which an individual’s lived experienced is aligned with the shared experience of a given cultural group. Psychologists who share their subject’s lived cultural experience are better positioned to evaluate and interpret their behavior within that cultural context than psychologists living outside of their subjects’ cultural experience. For example, a Chinese psychologist who grew up speaking Mandarin in the suburbs of Shanghai would be better positioned and more acculturated in his or her capacity to evaluate a subject of a similar background.
Assimilation refers to the individual’s integration within the dominant culture (often at the expense of his or her culture of origin). Identification with his or her previous cultural identity may persist, but daily activity will reflect the dominant culture. The threat of assimilation is the loss of acculturation to one’s historical identity (culture of origin). However, assimilation is frequently reinforced by the dominant culture that pressures integration. Assimilation generally results in greater access to institutions and opportunities, whereas maintaining cultural separation tends to limit this same access and opportunities.
Cultural awareness speaks to an individual’s sensitivity and understanding toward members of other cultural groups. Psychologists operating in a multicultural environment must be aware of and sensitive to the differences that exist between their own lived experience and that of the individual or group they are working with. This awareness must include an understanding of emic and etic distinctions, an awareness of potential cultural biases, and the adoption of a hermeneutical cultural lens.
Cultural competence references the ability to effectively operate within different cultural contexts. Competence is relative to the individual and the degree to which he or she is acculturated, assimilated, aware, and experienced with the cultural group and contextual factors in question. The greater the separation between the psychologist’s cultural experience and identity and the subject’s cultural experience and identity, the greater will be the challenge in achieving cultural competence. For this reason, many operational psychologists will require additional training and exposure, consultation, and integration with culturally competent interpreters.
Finally, enculturation refers to the degree to which the individual has an awareness of the specific and unique aspects of his or her own culture. An individual may have immigrated from another culture but not have cultural awareness of its own uniqueness. This lack of cultural awareness is more common than previously thought. The typical American has little enculturation of American culture, which may decrease his or her ability to function effectively and perform with cultural competence within another culture or American subculture.
Operational psychologists can never be subject matter experts in every culture. The goal is not to have a deep understanding of every culture but to recognize how culture and bias interact, to identify the risks that impact objectivity, and to appreciate cultures’ unique expressions manifest in psychological assessments. OSS assessment staff recognized the need to account for culture within their assessments of indigenous forces in the early 1940s (OSS, 1948). In the process of creating a testing battery and procedures for assessing potential foreign intelligence operatives, OSS psychologists understood that Western norms would not be appropriate in their indigenous assessments. They recognized the effect of culture not only on their performance within psychological measures but also in their approach and interpersonal interactions during situational judgment tests and other assessment scenarios.
Shaped by the orientation of “cultural psychology,” operational psychologists remain attuned to the fact that human psychology is a complex combination of universal characteristics (personality traits, basic needs, and motives) and contextual meaning and expression. Cultural psychology involves the study of cultural meanings, practices, and institutions as they influence the psychology of an individual within a people group. Cultural psychology examines the variance between cultures, starting with the assumption that psychological theories of motivation, needs, relational styles, and cognitive processing differ between cultures (Hui, 1985; Marcus & Kitayama, 1991). While cultural psychologists do not deny the existence of common characteristics between cultures, they promote the idea that psychological processes are culturally patterned. In other words, as individuals interact with their language, cultural practices, and institutions, their feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are continually shaped by their culture. Inversely, their individual characteristics and expression of cultural practices shape the culture writ large. From this perspective, cultural psychology provides national security practitioners insight into understanding an individual in terms of where his or her “etics” and “emics” meet.
Providing psychological services across cultures often raises ethics-related concerns. Psychologists are directed to operate in areas that fall within their competence, based on education, experience, training, or consultation. Operational psychologists conducting services with culturally diverse populations should be mindful of their boundaries of expertise and seek education and consultation whenever working in areas that may challenge their competence. As the APA’s Ethics Code points out (see Standard 2.01), in some areas of emerging practice there may be very little known. In such instances, psychologists take reasonable steps to secure competent practices (APA, 2017). This admonition applies equally to the cultural group for which little is known or about which the extant research literature has little to say.
Psychologists’ ethical considerations also include their clients and the individuals with whom they work. In many cases, operational psychologists working in national security and defense settings provide third-party consultation. In such instances, the individual subject of the psychologist’s work is not the identified client. In fact, the psychologist and the subject may never meet or may have only limited interaction, sufficient to complete the evaluation, assessment, or training support requested. Limits to informed consent are often imposed by the client, may simply be implied by the nature of the consultation, or may be unreasonable or impossible to secure (see Standards 3.10 and 9.03). Nevertheless, operational psychologists engaged in such activities make reasonable efforts to mitigate harm when it is known or expected.
When conducting assessments or evaluations, operational psychologists ensure that their opinions are sufficiently supported by the methods and instruments employed (see Standard 9.01). This can be a particularly daunting challenge when working with culturally diverse populations. Due to the historic bias in the research literature, favoring Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies (WEIRD), psychologists are often at risk for overgeneralizations from this U.S.-based sample (Christopher et al., 2014). In many instances, little is known to the West about the psychology of diverse cultural people groups. While there has been a movement toward greater cultural awareness and culturally competent psychological practice, such risks remain (APA, 2002).
There are many challenges to the proper identification, selection, and employment of culturally appropriate assessment measures and procedures. Ethically, operational psychologists are charged, as are all others, to employ assessment tools that are reliable, valid, and appropriate to the nature of their work (see EPPCC 9.02). In addition, such measures and procedures should be employed in a manner consistent with their intended use. This can be a daunting task when consulting with subjects outside one’s own culture and when working with subjects whose culture lacks relevant psychological instruments for use. When appropriate measures or methods are unavailable, practitioners must make clear the limitations of their instruments or procedures and the probable impact on assessment findings, including the conclusions or recommendations drawn from them.
Operational psychologists are responsible for providing assessment feedback to their clients, and when possible, feedback to the subject of their assessment. Typically, such feedback includes information about assessment instruments employed, the results of those measures, the basis for recommendations, and any significant limitations. Often, however, the client is not the subject of the interview. As in the context of personnel assessment and selection, the client is not the subject interviewed, but the leadership team or other stakeholders directing the assessment. Consequently, the ability of the psychologists to test hypotheses regarding cultural influences in the presence of the subject may be limited. The operational psychologist must therefore estimate the impact of culture, language, and background history on the subject’s presentation. In doing so, they will also make the limits of their understanding known to the assessment team.
Informed consent should be provided to all appropriate parties involved in operational psychology consultations (see EPPCC 3.10). In cross-cultural assessments, there may be times when the provision of informed consent may not be possible. In such instances, operational practitioners should consider the best interests of all parties involved and seek to minimize any foreseeable or avoidable harms that might result from the consultation. In some instances, assent as opposed to consent may be a more reasonable expectation. When providing services to organizations and third-party clients (entities requesting services that may impact individuals who are not identified as clients), practitioners may be precluded from providing informed consent to “non-clients” otherwise impacted by the psychologist’s services (see EPPCC 3.11).
As mentioned previously, one prominent area of concern is the use of psychological tests and measurements. The vast majority of popular personality and cognitive measures have been developed and normed on Western populations, a group that comprises less than 10 percent of the world’s population. Many tests contain systemic bias that makes their use with non-Western cultural groups suspect if not unethical. In response, reasonable attempts have been made to create culture-specific methods for measuring these constructs, and a number of tests or assessment instruments that claim to be culture-fair or culture-free have been created. The Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-4; Fopiano, 2013) is one example, and the Raven’s Progressive Matrices is another (Raven, Raven, & Court, 2004).
The consideration of language and culture as they impact the validity and reliability of assessment measures may be seen in operational psychology during World War II. During OSS assessments of Chinese, Thai, Malayan, and Burmese subjects, psychologists selected measures they believed to be least effected by culture. As mentioned previously, aptitude and memory testing with these groups lacked appropriate validity and normative sampling. More recently, nonverbal tests have been employed as culture-fair assessment instruments. Such tests attempt to remove language barriers in an assessment of subject aptitude or interpersonal style. In addition to the limitations in test stimuli, lower literacy rates among subjects, less general education, and Western testing formats threaten the validity of measuring cross culturally. At Camp K, during an overseas OSS assessment event in Asia, the administrators found, “Often a recruit had not learned such an elementary operation as the use of a pencil” (OSS, 1948, p. 358). Operational psychologists have found similar issues in recent attempts to employ traditional “paper-pencil” tests in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Such approaches remain so novel to some subjects that extra training is needed prior to beginning an assessment event. Even the major producers of psychometric tests neglect to adequately validate and norm their tests for most non-Western cultures. Many companies will sell “translated” versions of their tests without validating these translations in their targeted culture. Operational psychologists are mandated to seek education and training in these areas to ensure they are employing appropriate methods of assessment and are providing proper caveats to their findings and recommendations in such instances.
Operational psychologists must consider a number of different factors in their self-assessment of cultural competence. This assessment should include their native acculturation, their previous training and exposure to the culture in question, the availability of consultation with subject matter experts in the area, and the complexity of consultation tasks to be completed.
There are several ways operational practitioners acquire cultural competence. Potential gaps in competence should be assessed early in an operational psychologist’s career to assist him or her in identifying developmental opportunities and requirements. Formal training and education, independent study, consultation and mentorship by more experienced practitioners, and supervision during the actual conduct of the consultation tasks are all potential avenues in developing competence. It is the responsibility of practitioners to remain aware of their gaps in competence. This is consistent with the expectations and requirements as established by the APA’s Ethics Code, embodied in EPPCC 2.03. When representing their competence to others, operational psychologists must do so in a manner that is consistent with their qualifications, credentials, training, and experience (see EPPCC 5.01).
Based on an operational psychologist’s degree of competence, and the existing gaps in the literature related to the cultural context of their consultation, practitioners should be mindful of the limitations associated with their work. It would be unrealistic and inappropriate to state with certainty that a particular set of conclusions or predictions about behavior, decision making, or risk were likely, given some cross-cultural consultation environments. Operational psychologists should attempt to clarify and make clear these limits when consulting. They also would do well to share best practices from the field and advise others when empirical research is not yet available for some operational applications.
An additional consideration concerning cross-cultural activities is the use and role of interpreters. Operational psychologists often work in diverse settings, with equally diverse populations. It is not uncommon for the psychologist providing consultation or conducting an assessment to speak a primary language that is different from that of the subject of their consultation. In such situations, the operational psychologist requires the services of an interpreter. When such needs arise, the psychologist should take care to meet in advance with the interpreter in order to discuss the purpose of the consultation, share relevant information about the subject, review the setting and conditions of their interview, and discuss any concerns that may present themselves. Care should be taken to ensure that the interpreter chosen for support is sufficiently familiar with the culture and any other sensitivities surrounding the subject of the psychologist’s consultation. If possible, reasonable steps should be taken to secure consent for the use of the interpreter from the subject.
Interpreters must not only simply understand the subjects’ language and culture, but they must also comprehend the impact of the psychologist’s culture on their use of language. In addition, the interpreter must work to apply this understanding in a manner that determines both the explicit and implicit meanings of the subject and the psychologist. Often the operational psychologist may request a word-for-word “direct” translation in the hope that this will resolve the issues. However, simple translation often fails to carry meaning across the cultural barrier, and the consequent phrasing is confusing at best.
Therefore, the dilemma resident in interpretation provides a colorful example of the mutual interdependence in cultures and languages between the interpreter, the subject, and the psychologist. The psychologist must rely on and trust in the capability of the interpreter to bridge the gap of culture to ensure that the subject and psychologist understand each other, taking their disparate cultural communication styles and understanding into account. To capture cultural nuances during translation, additional time may be required. Probing questions or clarification by the psychologist as well as thoughtful reflection may be needed to promote understanding. For example, an operational psychologist was assisting a military commander to find mutual areas of interest with a provincial leader. The commander had been struggling in his interactions with the provincial leader, finding that the conversation consistently derailed an hour or so into the exchange. During a subsequent engagement, the psychologist brought in a soldier who, unbeknownst to the interpreter, knew the language. The soldier reported that the interpreter would tire after thirty minutes and translate only the words being spoken without enriching the translation with cultural context or meaning. Consequent confusion ensued, and the talks broke down. As a side note, the interpreter at one point told the provincial leader that “the commander was getting tired and needed to stop the interview to get rest.” This vignette highlights the importance of interpreters and the need for a strong relationship with the psychologist employing their services.
Interpreters must act as the cultural glue between the psychologist and the subject, but not all interpreters excel in this capacity. The interpreter must have cultural awareness as well as cultural competence. In addition, as seen in the preceding example, they must be willing to apply these consistently and reliably. The interpreter may develop a close relationship with the subject, often finding commonalities in culture and family. Nonetheless, they must be willing to defer to the psychologist (interviewer) and remain aware of their own biases. Even a skilled and experienced interpreter may, without intension, gradually and imperceptibly take control of the interview or shape their interpretation to be more or less favorable to the subject.
An operational psychologist was asked to assist in the development of a suitability screening program for job applicants applying for positions as advisors to the U.S. military given their knowledge of the language, culture, ideology, and socio-political landscape. The psychologist sought to identify screening instruments and procedures that were culturally appropriate. At the time of the consultation, there were few, if any, Iraqi Arab psychologists or psychiatrists for collaboration. In fact, there were a documented 25 psychologists/psychiatrists (combined) in the entire country of Iraq, a nation of 25 million citizens. As a result, the psychologist reviewed the research literature for personality measurements that were considered “culture fair.” The Nonverbal Personality Questionnaire (NPQ) was selected based on the fact that it did not require a language or literacy standard (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Paunonen, Ashton, & Jackson, 2001; Paunonen, Jackson, & Keinonen, 1990; Paunonen, Jackson, Trzebinski, & Forsterling, 1992; Paunonen, Zeidner, Engvik, Oosterveld, & Maliphant, 2000; Staal, 2012). The NPQ was paired with a brief interview questionnaire to capture previous work experience, education, and other job-related information. The psychologist selected an appropriate interpreter, and the two discussed and reviewed the test questions and materials as well as the interview questionnaire. The interpreter was chosen for his ethnic and dialectical similarity to the prospective job applicants. Despite the nonverbal nature of the NPQ, verbal instructions and explanation for each stimulus were required. This was determined after piloting the instrument on several non-English-speaking Iraqis. As a result, the instrument was translated and transformed into a verbally mediated “nonverbal” test. Although this decision was counter to the original design of the instrument, it was the only way to field the test with the job applicants. This modification was discussed with the test publisher (Sigma Assessments) in order to secure permission. Several lessons were learned in the use of this personality measure that are detailed later. To better understand how cultural issues intersected with the nonverbal test employed, a brief discussion concerning Iraqi Arab cultural and cognitive perceptions is provided. Much has been written about the differences between the Western and Eastern mind-set or perspective. This includes descriptions of the Middle Eastern or “Arab mind” (Lawrence, 1926, 1927; Lewis, 2002; Maxwell, 1994; Nydell, 2002; Patai, 1973; Thesiger, 1964).
One of the most widely identified cultural differences concerns individualistic versus collectivistic cultures. Individuals raised in collectivistic cultures tend to be socialized with a greater sense of self-sacrifice in favor of the needs of the larger group. This fosters an interdependence with strong in-group versus out-of-group identity and distinction. In collectivistic cultures, individual and group goals are often indistinguishable (Al-Zahrani & Kaplowitz, 1993; Wenzlaff, 2004). In Iraq, Arab culture promotes an emphasis on saving face, maintaining dignity, and upholding family honor (Bierbrauer, 1992; Dwairy & Van Sickle, 1996; Haboush, 2007; Oyserman, 1993). In contrast, individualistic cultures promote independent thought and action. Debate and resistance to authority or to the larger group majority are often prized as a cultural ideal. Such behavior is an expression of autonomous identity and individualism. Personality assessment items that emphasized individualistic goals or accomplishment and those depicting solitary activities were often viewed negatively and rarely endorsed by applicants. In contrast, images on the test that promoted group activities, generosity, and bringing honor to others were much more commonly endorsed by all.
In the West we describe events as unfolding across a linear chronology. Events are seen in sequence with a clear beginning, middle, and end. When describing our own history and experiences we tend to start from the beginning and proceed through time arriving at the end of our story. In contrast, in Iraqi Arab culture, time is a much less tangible and less linear concept. Iraqi Arabs embrace a polychronic framework of time that causes it to be experienced as somewhat intangible, fluid, and flexible. They impose structure on time (Al-Krenawi & Graham, 2000; Haboush, 2007). It was not uncommon during job applicant interviews to find candidates recalling events in this fashion. Past education, work histories, and life events were rarely recalled in chronological order, and in many instances, the interviewer and interpreter struggled to impose a Western structure of organization on the information gathered. Our own cultural need for linear structure and a chronological sequencing of events drove us to ask follow-up and clarification questions. In some instances, those questions frustrated the job applicants.
Westerners encourage confession and individual responsibility for wrongdoing. Such expectations are consistent with a guilt-based culture. In order to relieve our guilt, we believe it’s healthy to share it with others, and in doing so, our burden is reduced. However, in a shame-based culture like that in Iraq, acknowledging a transgression is to invite shame, not to reduce it. One’s load isn’t lighter but heavier when guilt is accepted or proclaimed (Bierbrauer, 1992; Haboush, 2007). In fact, Arab culture has developed a variety of coping strategies to resist direct confession, including denial, rationalization, and diffusion of responsibility. Common to Western job suitability interviews, a candidate’s ability to identify points of failure, areas of personal growth, and vulnerabilities is viewed positively as a sign of insight, personal reflection, and maturity. Such acknowledgments were very difficult to secure in the Iraqi Arab job applicant pool. Often applicants denied failures or faults. Through a cultural lens, such denials should be normalized for interviews and not indict the subject as being deceptive or evasive.
Westerners place great value on objective facts and logical reasoning. Emotionality and subjective experience tend to be discounted, if not ignored. During a job interview or application process, candidates who interject emotion into their decision making raise concerns about potential unsuitability to prospective employers. However, Arab culture values a balanced blend of reason and emotional appeal. Applicants frequently displayed emotion and great passion in their description of past events, future intentions, and in response to the personality test stimuli. These inclusions are most appropriately considered within their cultural context.
Employment of a personality measure in job applicant screening, despite its construction as a nonverbal culture fair test, presented several unique challenges. It should be noted that the NPQ does not purport to be normed or validated on an Arab or Middle Eastern sample. However, it has been validated across several cultural groups, including non-Western cultures. Moreover, despite the challenges referenced earlier, value was found in the use of the instrument. It aided in identifying motivational factors among applicants and allowed the interviewer to explore personality dimensions among candidates. In hindsight, a failure of the operational psychologist to contextualize applicant responses would have led to misunderstandings, an inaccurate interpretation of results, and in many instances an unfavorable assessment of suitability. These conclusions strongly argue for practicing operational psychologists to ensure their familiarity with and competency in working with individuals of different cultural backgrounds.
Operational psychologists provide similar services across different cultural and geographical locations. In the following example, an operational psychologist was working as an embedded support element with a cultural engagement team in Afghanistan. Such teams often comprise infantry or Special Forces personnel, military intelligence officers, and psychologists or other social science consultants. Psychologists working with engagement teams may advise their leadership and assist with interviews of the local population. On one occasion, the team visited a small village outside Kandahar, and during this engagement, the assigned operational psychologist met with a village elder to discuss the history of the village. Despite the experience and qualifications of the team’s interpreter, he struggled to understand the elder’s retelling of his village history. The elder provided historical references surrounding various village events and nested his descriptions within historical relationships (friendships, marriages, and deaths). For the interpreter, these culturally nuanced expressions and the nonlinearity in which the elders relayed their history made it difficult to understand. This situation illustrates the point that even a native speaker, after having lived in the West and acclimated to Western styles of communication, may find it difficult to fully understand a native speaker who has remained embedded within his or her original Eastern cultural context. For the Afghan elder in this vignette, his use of relational reference points as historical anchors (e.g., a death in the family, a celebrated marriage, betrayal by a neighbor, exchange or purchase of property, and the events of war) is culturally appropriate and a preferred practice in the region.
The dialogue between the elder and the engagement team leader also illustrates the differences between two cultures. The Western team leader requested historical timelines and information about critical events, expecting a linear chronological sequence with dates and times provided. In response, the tribal elder referenced time only by major events and relationships. For example, the elder stated, “It was after the death of [the tribal head elder] and after the marriage of [another elder’s] first son that the Taliban first entered the village.” Each set of events related in sequence to each other but lacked a coherent, linear timeline or dates as related to other sets of events and relationships. In this manner, historical reporting may reference recent events as well as those occurring at a much earlier date. As a result, events recalled from the first Anglo-Afghan War of 1838 may be presented as equally relevant to a topic as a village wedding that occurred the previous year.
Operational psychologists must be students of culture. They require an understanding of their own cultural biases and an acknowledgment that awareness of cultural differences is just the first step on a long road of education and experience before they will be culturally competent. To be successful, practitioners need to navigate the use of interpreters and the challenges of conducting interviews and assessments with foreign subjects. The differences in language are just one of the many obstacles. Inadequate tests and measurements, nonrepresentative normative samples, and even psychological and cognitive constructs that don’t translate well between cultures are all considerations. As the OSS did in 1943, operational psychologists must research and develop protocols tailored to specific cultures that generate effective assessment strategies. This research and development may include establishing local norms for the populations served and adapting existing measurements in a manner consistent with culturally appropriate problem-solving and interpersonal style. In many ways, this list of challenges can be daunting and dissuade practitioners from working across cultures. However, operational psychologists are uniquely positioned within the national security architecture to make significant contributions to our understanding of psychology and its manifestation across cultures.
Al-Krenawi, A., & Graham, J. R. (2000). Culturally sensitive social work practice with Arab clients in mental health settings. Health & Social Work, 25, 9–23.
Al-Zahrani, S.S.A., & Kaplowitz, S. A. (1993). Attributional biases in individualistic and collectivistic cultures: A comparison of Americans with Saudis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 223–233.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2014). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists (2002). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/multicultural-guidelines.aspx
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2010). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
Bierbrauer, G. (1992). Reactions to violation of normative standards: A cross-cultural analysis of shame and guilt. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 181–194.
Christopher, J. C., Wendt, D. C., Marecek, J., & Goodman, D. M. (2014). Critical cultural awareness: Contributions to a globalizing psychology. American Psychologist, 69(7), 645–655.
Church, T. A. (2000). Culture and personality: Toward an integrated cultural trait psychology. Journal of Personality, 68, 651–703.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258–265.
Dwairy, M., & Van Sickle, T. D. (1996). Western psychotherapy in traditional Arabic societies. Clinical Psychology Review, 16, 231–249.
Fiske, A., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 915–981). San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.
Fopiano, J. (2013). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-4). In F. R. Volkmar (Eds.), Encyclopedia of autism spectrum disorders. New York: Springer.
Haboush, K. L. (2007). Working with Arab American families: Culturally competent practice for school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 183–198.
Hardin, E. E., Robitschek, C., Flores, L. Y., Navarro, R. O., & Ashton, M. W. (2014). The cultural lens approach to evaluating cultural validity of psychological theory. American Psychologist, 69(7), 656–668.
Hui, C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 16, 131–152.
Lawrence, T. E. (1926). Seven pillars of wisdom. New York: Doubleday.
Lawrence, T. E. (1927). Revolt in the desert. London: Jonathan Cape.
Lewis, B. (2002). The Arabs in history. New York: Oxford University.
Marcus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Maxwell, G. (1994). A reed shaken by the wind: Travels among the marsh Arabs of Iraq. London: Eland.
Nydell, M. K. (2002). Understanding Arabs: A guide for westerners (3rd ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural.
Obeid, N., Chang, D., & Ginges, J. (2010). Beliefs of wife beating: A Lebanese case. Violence Against Women, 16, 691–712.
Office of Strategic Services Assessment Staff. (1948). Assessment of men: Selection of personnel for the Office of Strategic Services. New York: Rinehart.
Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self and others in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 993–1009.
Patai, R. (1973). The Arab mind. New York: Macmillan.
Paunonen, S. V., Ashton, M. C., & Jackson, D. N. (2001). Nonverbal assessment of the big five personality factors. European Journal of Personality, 15, 3–18.
Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N., & Keinonen, M. (1990). The structured nonverbal assessment of personality. Journal of Personality, 58, 481–502.
Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N., Trzebinski, J., & Forsterling, F. (1992). Personality structure across cultures: A multimethod evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 447–456.
Paunonen, S. V., Zeidner, M., Engvik, H. A., Oosterveld, P., & Maliphant, R. (2000). The nonverbal assessment of personality in five cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 220–239.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2003, updated 2004). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Staal, M. A. (2012). Assessing Iraqi Arab personality using the Nonverbal Personality Questionnaire. Military Medicine, 177(6), 732–739.
Thesiger, W. (1964). The marsh Arabs. Hamrondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wenzlaff, K. (2004). Terrorism: Game theory and other explanations (Bachelor’s thesis). Universitat Bayreuth, Germany.