You are on page 1of 3

Child Development, September/October 2000, Volume 71, Number 5, Pages 11591161

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- tension in Japan, counter to our claim that these qual-
baum, Pott, Azuma, Miyake, & Weisz, 2000) reflect a ities are far more characteristic of Japanese and U.S.
desire for the kind of synthesis of cultural research on pathways, respectively. Lebra notes that conflict,
development that we suggest. We are encouraged by which we also associate with the United States more
the interest in synthesis among this extraordinary than Japan, is alive and well in Japan, but takes differ-
group of cultural psychologists, and we are inspired ent forms (i.e., it is more internalized, occurs at later
by their important elaborations of our ideas: Fogels ages, and involves third parties).
(Fogel, 2000) call for longitudinal developmental We believe that this search for exceptions is a
pathway research, Kitayamas (Kitayama, 2000) no- healthy process, essential for the continued enrich-
tion that the U.S. and Japanese experience of self are ment of theory. Qualifications are the best antidote to
nurtured by different relationships, Lebras (Lebra, over-generalization. Indeed, our own ideas about
2000) suggestion that our pathways differ in how pathways came about by first examining prevailing
they prepare children for stress and intimacy in adult- generalizations about JapaneseU.S. differences in
hood, Lewiss (Lewis, 2000) distinction between the development, then gathering relevant evidence, and
means and content of socialization, and Tobins (To- finally articulating revised or new generalizations
bin, 2000) speculations about how our pathways vary that better fit the facts. The dialectic between thesis
across generations and how they differ in old age. (generalization) and antithesis (exceptions), will ulti-
While they support our approach, the commenta- mately lead to the most sophisticated models of de-
tors point to three possible limitations: exceptions velopmental pathways.
to our proposed pathways, our emphasis on two-
culture comparisons, and our suggestion that each
EMPHASIS ON TWO-CULTURE COMPARISON
developmental pathway necessarily entails problems
in adaptation. We believe the issue of trade-offs is In addition to calling for closer scrutiny of exceptions,
central to all three concerns. Below we consider each the commentators question whether two-culture
set of trade-offs and provide suggestions about how comparisons are optimal. They call for more in-depth,
to find an optimal balance in each instance. one-culture studies and they call for multi-culture
comparisons. We briefly note some pros and cons of
each approach.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROPOSED PATHWAYS
One-culture studies are typically qualitative, ethno-
The commentators are concerned that we may be graphic inquiries that provide rich, in- depth descrip-
over-generalizing, and they point to exceptions and tions of development and its individual and situa-
complexities beyond those we discussed. For exam- tional variation. Because these studies adopt an emic
ple, Fogel cites evidence of symbiotic harmony in the approach, relying on indigenous reports, they inspire
United States and Tobin cites evidence of generative valuable new insights that challenge prevailing theo-
ries of development. A one-culture study would be
optimal for studying Tobins notion that there are dif-
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- 2000 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
ative Tension. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2000/7105-0007
1160 Child Development

ferences in the way Japanese males and females man- mulation of the question is unanswerable. Adaptation
ifest symbiotic harmony. This approach is also opti- depends upon the demands of the context (economic,
mal for studying development in contextit is social, political, etc.), changes in demands and the con-
difficult to study contexts and behaviorcontext rela- text over time (at different stages of development, over
tions when formally comparing cultural groups be- generations), criteria used to assess adaptation (sur-
cause of the need to control for situation. Compara- vival, well-being of most members), and conceptions
tive studies tend to ignore unusual situations and of well-being (altruism, peacefulness, honesty, mate-
differences in the frequency of situations, as well as rial success, and so on).
the ways in which development is shaped by, obtains While we are unable to determine whether there
meaning from, and influences situations. are pathways that optimize adaptive outcomes in gen-
Two-culture studies more often rely on quantitative eral (or, conversely, whether all pathways lead to
methods than do one-culture studies. They are typi- trade-offs), we believe we can determine whether there
cally associated with traditional psychological re- are pathways that optimize the two kinds of valued
search and possess all the attendant strengths (careful outcomes described in our reviewindividuation
controls, reliability and validity of measures) and and related values (freedom, autonomy, and self ex-
weaknesses (neglect of context and indigenous theo- pression) on one hand, and accommodation and re-
ries and experts) of this tradition (Lebra, Lewis). The lated values (harmony, adherence to norms, and self
feature of two-culture studies we most value is that denial) on the other. We agree with Lewis that we
they make explicit widely shared, but infrequently should strive for the best of both worlds, but we sus-
examined, cultural assumptions (Tobin). This is in pect that this has more to do with flexibly alternating
contrast to one-culture studies, which make implicit between different values than with simultaneously
comparisons between the culture examined and the adhering to different values. That is, each outcome
investigators culture of origin (or their intended au- may only be valued and adaptive in certain contexts
dience). Two-culture studies help ensure that as- and the optimal pathway is the one in which children
sumptions about cultural differences are empirically learn when and how to adopt each.
tested. The simplicity of the comparison makes it pos-
sible to focus on complex developmental themes like
generative tension and symbiotic harmony in a CONCLUSION
straightforward manner. There are several ways in which we can benefit from
Multiple-culture studies are more difficult to charac- the commentators constructive criticisms of our for-
terize than single- or two-culture studies. Many of mulation of developmental pathways. Our theories
them resemble two-culture studies in that they adopt are enriched by a balance of generalizations and ex-
traditional psychological methods; others resemble ceptions; our methods are more sophisticated when
single culture studies in that they adopt qualitative we balance one-, two-, and multiple-culture compari-
ethnographic methods. In both cases, multiculture sons; and relational values are most adaptive when
studies help us realize that the ways in which devel- they entail a balance of individuation and accommo-
opmental pathways differ depend upon the cultures dation. Rather than a middle ground, we need well
compared; multiculture studies present a much more formulated guidelines that indicate which type of
realistic and multidimensional portrait of the differ- theory, methods, and values is called for under differ-
ences in developmental pathways than do two- ent sets of circumstances.
culture comparisons. Yet they, too, have their limita- 1. We suspect that generalizations are called for
tions. They add complexity to the already daunting when exceptions are dominant, and vice versa. Our
task of understanding differences in development. own generalizations, which were in response to exten-
sive ethnographic research during the past decade
(Lewis), will hopefully fuel more ethnographic work
EACH PATHWAY NECESSARILY ENTAILS
focused on exceptionsand the commentators have
PROBLEMS IN ADAPTATION
proposed several valuable directions this work might
The commentators question our assumption that de- take.
velopmental pathways that promote certain values 2. Two-culture comparisons may be optimal when
necessarily undermine others. Lewis suggests that the goal is to test developmental hypotheses rather
this view denies the possibility of optimal develop- than to break new ground. It would have been diffi-
ment. Are there certain developmental pathways that cult to test our developmental pathways without the
maximize positive/adaptive outcomes and minimize straightforward comparison provided by two-culture
negative/maladaptive ones? We suspect that this for- studies. Both one-culture and multi-culture studies
Rothbaum et al. 1161

are optimal for generating new ideas, but one-culture his sustaining support, and for expert guidance
studies may be better suited for describing individual throughout the review process.
variation and personenvironment interactions over
development (Lebra), and multiple-culture studies
may be optimal for generating more complex hypoth- ADDRESSES AND AFFILIATIONS
eses about developmental difference (Tobin).
Corresponding author: Fred Rothbaum, Eliot-Pearson
3. In addition to determining which values are
Department of Child Development, Tufts University,
most adaptive in which contexts, we must also under-
Medford, MA, 02155; e-mail: frothbau@tufts.edu. Mar-
stand why people seek out different contexts and
tha Pott is also at Tufts University; Hiroshi Azuma is at
why they interpret contexts very differently (Ki-
Shirayuri University, Tokyo, Japan; Kazuo Miyake is at
tayama). A particular challenge for future research is
Hokkaido-Iryo University, Hokkaido, Japan; and John
to examine how children learn the rules (contexts)
Weisz is at the University of California, Los Angeles.
governing when each set of values is most adaptive
and how to flexibly shift between them (e.g., cooper-
ation, self-denial and other forms of accommodation
when group cohesion is high, as contrasted with self- REFERENCES
assertion and other forms of individuation when
Fogel, A. (2000). Developmental pathways in close relation-
group cohesion is low). We suspect that optimal de-
ships. Child Development, 71, 11501151.
velopment involves both this flexibility, or kejime, Kitayama, S. (2000). Collective construction of the self and
which is emphasized in Japan (kejime is defined by social relationships: A rejoinder and some extensions.
Tobin as how to adjust ones expectations, behav- Child Development, 71, 11431146.
ior, and speech . . . to contextual demands), and a Lebra, T. S. (2000). New insight and old dilemma: A cross-
sense of psychic unity or coherence emphasized in cultural comparison of Japan and the U.S. Child Develop-
the United States (Kitayama). ment, 71, 11471149.
We believe that the evolution of theories, methods, Lewis, C. C. (2000). Human development in the United
and values pertaining to developmental pathways re- States and Japan: New ways to think about continuity
quires an understanding of when each is adaptive, across the lifespan. Child Development, 71, 11521154.
Rothbaum, F., Pott, M., Azuma, H., Miyake, K., & Weisz, J.
and that we are only beginning to appreciate the need
(2000). The development of close relationships in Ja-
for this understanding.
pan and the United States: Paths of symbiotic harmony
and generative tension. Child Development, 71, 1121
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1142.
Tobin, J. (2000). Using the Japanese problem as a correc-
The authors wish to thank Robert LeVine, the action tive to the ethnocentricity of Western theory. Child Devel-
editor for the articles on developmental pathways, for opment, 71, 11551158.

You might also like