Approaches to Culture in Mainstream Social Psychology and in Early Cross-Cultural Psychology 39Geneva, with the highest level of formal operations generally
not obtained. Likewise, cross-cultural Kohlbergian research
indicated that populations not exposed to higher levels of
education do not reach the highest (postconventional) stage
of moral judgment. Results of this type were generally inter-
preted as reflecting the cognitive richness of the environment
that resulted in more advanced cognitive development in cer-
tain cultures over others. They were also interpreted as sup-
porting the universality of cognitive developmental theory. It
was concluded that culture is nonessential in development, in
that the sequence and end point of developmental change are
culturally invariant (e.g., Piaget, 1973).
Inspired by Vygotsky and other Soviet investigators (e.g.,
Vygotsky, 1929, 1934/1987; 1978; Luria, 1928, 1976), theo-
rists in the early sociocultural tradition of cross-cultural re-
search on cognitive development proceeded by undertaking
experiments in diverse cultural settings. However, in contrast
to cognitive developmental viewpoints, they assumed that
cognitive development has a formative influence on the emer-
gence of basic psychological processes. Rather than view-
ing development as proceeding independently of cultural
learning, cultural learning was assumed to be necessary for
development to proceed. Vygotskiian theory and related so-
ciocultural approaches emphasized the importance of tool use
in extending cognitive capacities. From this perspective, cul-
tural transmission was assumed to be essential, with cognitive
development involving the internalization of the tools pro-
vided by the culture. Among the key cultural tools assumed to
transform minds were literacy and formal schooling, through
their assumed effects of providing individuals exposure to ab-
stract symbolic resources and giving rise to modes of reason-
ing that are relatively decontextualized and not directly tied to
practical activity (e.g., Goody, 1968). In viewing cultural
processes as a source of patterning of thought, work in the so-
ciocultural tradition shared many assumptions with and may
be considered part of cultural psychology. However, at least in
its early years, research in this tradition focused on establish-
ing the universality of basic cognitive processes; this linked it
closely to other contemporary traditions of cross-cultural
cognitive developmental research.
The earliest traditions of cross-cultural experimental re-
search undertaken by sociocultural theorists resembled those
of Piagetian researchers in both their methods and their find-
ings. After making only minor modifications, experimental
tests were administered to diverse cultural populations. These
populations were selected to provide a contrast in the cultural
processes thought to influence cognitive development, such
as literacy and schooling (e.g., Bruner, Olver, & Greenfield,
1966; Cole, Gay, Glick, & Sharp, 1971). Results revealed
that individuals who were illiterate or who lacked formal ed-
ucation scored lower in cognitive development, failing to
show such features as abstract conceptual development or
propositional reasoning, which appeared as end points of
cognitive development in Western industrialized contexts.
Such findings supported a “primitive versus modern mind”
interpretation of cultural differences, in which it was as-
sumed that the cognitive development of certain populations
remains arrested at lower developmental levels. This type of
argument may be seen, for example, in the conclusion drawn
by Greenfield and Bruner (1969) in drawing links between
such observed cross-cultural differences and related differ-
ences found in research contrasting cognition among main-
stream and minority communities within the United States:... As Werner (1948) pointed out, ‘development among primi-
tive people is characterized on the one hand by precocity and, on
the other, by a relatively early arrest of the process of intellectual
growth.’ His remark is telling with respect to the difference we
find between school children and those who have not been
to school. The latter stabilize earlier and do not go on to new lev-
els of operation. The same ‘early arrest’ characterizes the dif-
ferences between ‘culturally deprived’ and other American
children.
... Some environments ‘push’ cognitive growth better, ear-
lier, and longer than others.... Less demanding societies—less
demanding intellectually— do not produce so much symbolic
embedding and elaboration of first ways of looking and thinking.
(p. 654)
From this perspective, the impact of culture on thought was
assumed to be highly general, with individuals fully internal-
izing the tools provided by their culture and that resulting in
generalized cultural differences in modes of thought.
Later experimental research in the sociocultural tradition
challenged these early conclusions about global differences
in thought and about the transformative impact of cultural
tools on minds. Programs of cross-cultural research were un-
dertaken that focused on unpacking the complex cognitive
processes that are tapped in standard cognitive tests and in
assessing these components under diverse circumstances
(Cole & Scribner, 1974). Thus, for example, rather than using
the multiple objects that tended to be employed in Piagetian
seriation tasks, with their extensive memory demands, re-
searchers employed fewer objects in memory procedures.
Also, processes such as memory were assessed in the context
of socially meaningful material, such as stories, rather than
merely in decontextualized ways, such as through the presen-
tation of words. These and similar modifications showed that
cognitive performance varied depending on features of the