Applied Developmental Science
ISSN: 1088-8691 (Print) 1532-480X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hads20
What is culture? Systems of people, places, and
practices
José M. Causadias
To cite this article: José M. Causadias (2020) What is culture? Systems of people, places, and
practices, Applied Developmental Science, 24:4, 310-322, DOI: 10.1080/10888691.2020.1789360
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1789360
Published online: 20 Jul 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2460
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hads20
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE
2020, VOL. 24, NO. 4, 310–322
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1789360
What is culture? Systems of people, places, and practices
Jos
e M. Causadias
Arizona State University
ABSTRACT
Culture is a fuzzy concept without fixed boundaries, meaning different things according to
situations. To address this issue, I introduce a p-model to understand culture as a system of
people, places, and practices, for a purpose such as enacting, justifying, or resisting power.
People refers to population dynamics, social relations, and culture in groups. Places refers to
ecological dynamics, institutional influences, and culture in contexts. Practices refers to
participatory dynamics, community engagement, and culture in action. Power refers to
forcing others into compliance (power-over people), controlling access to spaces (power in
places), and behaving as desired (power-to practice). I use racism to illustrate the p-model
and suggest applications in theory, research, and practice in developmental sciences.
Should we abandon the concept of culture? The
answer is yes, according to several scholars who see it
as an obstacle for scientific progress. Culture has been
compared to protoplasm, a black box with vague qualities posing as explanations (Tooby, 2015), equated to
a seven-letter word that stands for god (Betzig, 2015),
and denounced as a convenient term to designate all
sorts of things we feel need to be grouped together
(Boyer, 2015). Indeed, culture is a fuzzy concept, a
term without fixed boundaries, meaning different
things according to situations (Gjerde, 2004; SpencerOatey & Franklin, 2012). Unlike crisp concepts that
have a relatively fixed meaning, set properties, and
stable boundaries; fuzzy concepts have many layers
of significance, changing its meaning according to
situations (Haack, 1996).
This fuzziness is a main reason why it is so
difficult to define culture. In fact, there is a long
tradition of reviewing definitions of culture (Kroeber
& Kluckhohn, 1952; Lonner & Malpass, 1994) and
denouncing confusion in the conceptualization of
culture as a major problem in psychology (Cooper &
Denner, 1998) and in other social sciences (Durham,
1991). Scientific progress is possible without consensus in a definition of culture, but specifying its main
characteristics can help advance the field even more
(Betancourt & L
opez, 1993).
Better definitions of culture can help avoid questionable research practices, such as treating culture as
CONTACT Jose M. Causadias
[email protected]
Building, 850 South Cady Mall, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA.
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
a proxy, a fixed variable impervious to change, and
a confound in statistical analyses (Quintana et al.,
2006); using culture to bolster deficit models that
portray some groups as inherently inferior and at risk
(Garcıa Coll et al., 1996); assuming that groups have
large cultural differences without any theoretical justification (Gjerde, 2004); and underestimating the
multifaceted and normative role of cultural processes
on development (Rogoff, 2003). For these reasons,
improving definitions of culture is imperative to avoid
misconceptions and biases that shape theory, research,
and practice in applied developmental science.
To promote better science, I introduce a p-model
in which culture is defined as a system of people,
places, and practices, for a purpose such as enacting,
justifying, or challenging power. People refers to
population dynamics, social relations, and culture in
groups. Places refers to ecological dynamics, institutional influences, and culture in contexts. Practices
refers to participatory dynamics, community engagement, and culture in action. Power refers to forcing
others into compliance (power-over people), controlling access to spaces (power in places), and behaving
as desired (power-to practice).
Next, I use racism to illustrate the p-model and
propose applications in theory, research, and practice
in developmental sciences. In this article, I incorporate
insights from relational epistemology (Overton, 2010,
2015), developmental psychopathology (Cicchetti,
School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, Cowden Family Resources
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE
311
People
Individual-Social
Processes
Processes
Power
Places
Temporal-Spatial
Processes
Practices
Behavioral-Symbolic
Figure 1. Culture as system of people, places, and practices connected by dimensions and processes, for a purpose such as justifying or resisting power.
This figure by Jose M. Causadias is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://www.josecausadias.com/contact.
1984), the integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children (Garcıa
Coll et al., 1996), several traditions of cultural research
in psychology (Shweder, 2000), critical race theory
(Bonilla-Silva, 2010), and dynamic relational theory of
power (Roscigno, 2011). I ground this paper on theory and research in the United States of America. I
use the term model because what I present here is the
start to a more comprehensive conceptualization
of culture.
What is culture? Introducing the p-model
Culture is a system, a dynamic whole that creates and
is created by people, places, and practices (Figure 1).
The system and its components are inseparable and
engaged in mutual determination: the whole organizes
the parts and the parts organize the whole (Overton,
2010). People create culture through shared practices
in places, and culture shapes how people engage in
practices and build places. The p-model is consistent
with a rich tradition of defining culture as systems
(Triandis, 2007). For example, Tylor (1871) defined
culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of
society” (p. 1). Geertz (1973) defined religion as a cultural system of symbols that informs actions, social
order, and world views. Understanding how culture
functions as a system requires discussing
its components.
People are the first essential component of culture
as a system: there is no culture without people and no
people without culture. People refers to population
dynamics, social relations, and culture in groups,
including families, communities, and nations. Many
definitions of culture underline this component of the
system (Cooper & Denner, 1998). For instance,
Snowdon (2018) defined culture as behavior patterns
that have some continuity across generations among
specific groups or populations, varying across different
people, but remaining somewhat consistent within
each one (Snowdon, 2018). Anthropologists have
described culture as systems of beliefs, ideals, behavior, and traditions related to specific populations
(Rogoff, 2003; Shweder, 2000).
Research on culture often centers on issues related
to people, including variation across human populations (cultural diversity) and differences between
groups (cultural differences). According to Shweder
(2000), the study of culture in psychology can be classified into subfields with different strategies to understand people, either by focusing on culture as a source
of diversity (cultural psychology), the unique cultural
experience of specific groups (indigenous psychology),
or the commonalities across human populations despite culture (cross-cultural psychology). A fourth subfield is centered on racial/ethnic minorities (ethnic
minority psychology; Sue, 2009).
Places are the second essential component of culture as a system: there is no culture without places
and no places without culture. Places refers to ecological dynamics, institutional influences, and culture
in contexts, including homes, neighborhoods, schools,
and cities. Many definitions of culture underline this
component of the system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
2005). There is a long tradition of emphasizing culture
as places in anthropology, for instance, framing culture as environmental settings for learning and thinking (Cole et al., 1971). Super and Harkness (1986)
highlighted the importance of the developmental
niche as unique context for individual development.
Research on culture often focuses on issues related
to places, including ecological influences on child
312
J. M. CAUSADIAS
development, formal and informal educational settings
that shape behavior and cognition, and situations that
facilitate adaptive or maladaptive adjustment. In
psychology, a main approach to culture-as-place is
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework, epitomized on
the notion that “it all depends” on the context (Cole,
1979). The word “context” can take a variety of meanings, including social, cultural, or environmental settings. Here, context refers to ecological, physical,
organizational, institutional, and virtual settings.
Practices are the third essential component of culture as a system: there is no culture without practices
and no practices without culture. Practices refers to
participatory dynamics, community engagement, and
culture in action, including teaching, learning, and
participating in everyday activities, traditions, and rituals. Many conceptualizations of culture underline
this component of the system, especially those
informed by the work of Vygotsky (Rogoff, 2003).
There is a rich legacy of emphasizing culture as practices in anthropology, through extensive ethnographic
research on children’s involvement in routine activities and how they shape development (Alcala
et al., 2014).
Research on culture often focuses on issues related
to practices, including how parents teach their children about social roles and values (cultural socialization), how they educate them about group
membership (ethnic socialization), and what they say
or remain silent regarding the construction of race
and racism (racial socialization). These practices can
facilitate risk, protection, and promotion of health and
wellbeing. For instance, positive parenting, community
engagement, and bicultural socialization among
Latinos in the United States have been associated with
wellbeing (Fuller & Garcıa Coll, 2010).
In sum, culture is a fuzzy concept, which makes it
difficult to define. The p-model approaches culture as
a system emerging from components, and components creating a system. I believe this approach can
help make culture a crisper and less fuzzy concept.
How does culture work? Connecting the
p-model
What is the glue that binds people-places-practices
together into a system? I argue that processes and
dimensions connect these components into a unified
whole (Figure 1). They play a central role in continuity and change in cultural systems.
First, theory and research on culture as people
reflects the tension between the person and the group
(Overton & M€
uller, 2012). Many conceptualizations of
culture emphasize its collective nature, composed of
social meanings and behaviors (Kitayama & Uskul,
2011). Thus, culture is not simply a personality trait
characteristic of one person, but has a supraindividual
nature. Culture is created, shared, and updated by
groups (Causadias, 2013). In sum, culture is social.
At the same time, culture is personal. Society
shapes and is shaped by individuals, reflecting a cycle
of mutual construction (Markus & Kitayama, 2010).
Gjerde (2004) made a case for the study of culture
that recognizes agency and individuality, and warned
against essentialism: assuming that groups are cohesive, coherent, and have a core nature or essence.
Essentialism leads to the neglect of individual differences and to viewing people as “carbon copies”
(Gjerde, 2004). In the United States, this is illustrated
by the tendency to see racial/ethnic minorities as
group members whose behavior is primarily shaped
by culture and less influenced by individual characteristics, such as personality, compared to Whites
(Causadias et al., 2018b).
The individual-social dimension of culture reconciles this tension, by moving beyond the notion that
the individual and the social are dual opposites at different ends of a spectrum (Cole & Wertsch, 1996), to
see them as intertwined, inseparable, and engaged in
constant feedback and mutual determination
(Overton, 2010). This is consistent with conceptualization of the person as a developing individual acting in
relation to others in cultural practices, a systems
approach that can help overcome questionable practices in contemporary psychology such as fragmenting,
objectifying,
and
aggregating
people’s
data
(Raeff, 2017).
Dimensions like the individual-social operate at
multiple levels of metatheory, from a specific domain
of inquiry to a more general epistemological level
(Overton, 2010). Therefore, the individual-social
dimension refers to relational dynamics between a
person and a group, but also to concepts of individuality and sociality in cultural theories that are in tension with each other. These dimensions are not
presented as dual categories typical of Cartesian paradigms, but as points of views (Latour, 1993), continuous dimensions (Raeff, 2011), or levels of analysis
(Overton, 2010). These cultural dimensions are articulated by cultural processes.
Systems are a relational web of processes in which
the whole determines the nature of the processes and
the processes determine the nature of the whole
(Overton, 2015). For instance, in the individual-social
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE
dimension, the person and the group are not seen as
exclusive contradictions, but as unique but equivalent
polarities of an integrated relationship, engaged in a
feedback loop of mutual codetermination (Overton,
2010). Cultural processes are shared and contested
beliefs, values, and guides for action that are reflected
in what people do, and in the cultural tools or means
that make this action possible (Wertsch, 1998).
Cultural processes connect people, places, and practices. They encompass the symbolic means of communication as action (e.g., language), economic and
political dynamics, the organizing of power and
authority (Raeff, 2017), and the institutional spaces
for cultural practices (Raeff, 2011).
Cultural processes in the individual-social dimension create and are created by cultural systems over
time. That is the case of ethnic-racial identity development. Racial/ethnic minority parents socialize their
children through discussions of what it means to
belong to a group, which can protect their youth from
the effects of racial stress and discrimination
(Anderson & Stevenson, 2019). In contrast, parental
socialization among White families often relies on
avoiding discussing or even acknowledging race
(Pahlke et al., 2012). This socialization facilitates the
development of ethnic-racial identity, the values and
attitudes related to the importance and meaning of
one’s ethnicity and race (Uma~
na-Taylor et al., 2014).
Cultural processes develop over time, not simply by
changing, but by following sequences of progressive
differentiation and integration in relation to developmental goals (Raeff, 2011).
Second, theory and research on culture as places
reflects the tension between time and space.
Ecological theories describe contexts changing over
time to shape development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
2005). The physical nature of culture is emphasized in
contextualist research on the developmental implications of low income parents struggling to procure
toys, books, and other didactic materials for their children at home, access quality child care and school setting, and/or live in safe neighborhoods (Duncan et al.,
2017). Consistent with this view, the person and the
environment are inseparable and intimately connected
(Wapner & Demick, 1998).
But culture is also rooted in time, as different generations are exposed to unique influences that shape
the values they support and the practices they engage
(Gentile et al., 2014). Evidence suggests important
generational differences due to exposure to times of
economic scarcity at different stages of development.
Compared to their older siblings who transitioned out
313
of high school before the recession of 2007, youth
who graduated during this time were less likely to
pursue higher education (Perez-Brena, Wheeler,
Rodrıguez De Jes
us, Updegraff, & Uma~
na-Taylor,
2017). There is change, but also continuity, within
time and space.
The temporal-spatial dimension of culture reconciles this tension, by moving beyond the notion that
time and space are dual opposites at different ends of
a spectrum, to see them as intertwined, inseparable,
and engaged in constant feedback and mutual determination. Temporal-spatial processes create and are
created by cultural systems. That is the case of ecological dissonance between generations, resulting from
differential exposure, access, and engagement in contexts of learning at different times and spaces. This
can lead to generational tension among all people,
majorities and minorities, migrants and natives.
Acculturation gap distress theory posits a generational mismatch between immigrant-origin parents
and their children in the way they embrace mainstream and heritage culture (Telzer, 2010). It argues
that children acculturate more rapidly and extensively
than their parents (Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1993), as
youth are better at mastering a new language than
their parents because they often engage in learning
practices in educational spaces in the new country,
during developmental times in which they are more
prone to learn and identify with a new culture
(Gonzales et al., 2018).
The temporal-spatial dimension of culture is consistent with a systems perspective that frames time
and space as interrelated constituents that shape each
other and lack meaning on their own (Overton, 2010).
Time and space are inseparable and central for a
developmental approach to culture: “rather than
appeal to the abstract, generalizable forms action
assumes, contextualism grounds itself in the now, in
the moment, in the real-time activities of organisms
in specific settings and contexts” (Witherington, 2007,
p. 131).
Third, theory and research on culture as practices
reflects the tension between behaviors and symbols.
Many conceptualizations of culture underscore the
behavioral nature of culture. Participation in everyday
community practices is a key aspect of culture (Raeff,
2006, 2017). For instance, mothers sharing books at
home with their young children and engaging in
story-telling can foster vocabulary development and
narrative skills (Luo & Tamis-LeMonda, 2017).
However, practices are also symbolic, including
ideologies that are passed from one generation to the
314
J. M. CAUSADIAS
next and can have a considerable impact on human
agency and social interactions (Kendal, 2011).
Symbols account for an array of knowledge encoded
in books, photos, videos, and electronic records, and
these symbolic structures are embodied in laws,
norms, conventions, and institutions (Odling-Smee &
Laland, 2011). For instance, moral meta-narratives
function as symbolic cultural frameworks that provide
meaning and motivate behavior and action (Causadias
et al., 2018a).
The behavioral-symbolic dimension of culture reconciles this tension, by moving beyond the notion
that behaviors and symbols are dual opposites at different ends of a spectrum, to see them as intertwined,
inseparable, and engaged in constant feedback and
mutual determination. Behavioral-symbolic processes
create and are created by cultural systems. That is the
case with rites of passage: rituals that mark and celebrate important developmental transitions of individuals within their communities (Rogoff, 2003).
Participation in these rituals has developmental implications for health and adaptation. For example, dyads
of mothers and daughters of Mexican ancestry show
more joint decision making and frank communication
after celebrating La Quincea~
nera rite of passage at age
15 (Romo et al., 2014).
Action is central to understanding cultural processes such as this rite of passage, not as something
that a person or group have, but something they enact
(Raeff, 2017). La Quincea~
nera is a practice of a people
in a place that is created by and creates a form of culture. It embodies the behavior-symbolic dimension by
enacting psychological meaning through intentional
embodied actions (M€
uller & Newman, 2008). This is
consistent with conceptualizations of culture that
frame human behavior as symbolic (Geertz, 1973).
In sum, considering cultural dimensions and process in the definition of culture can help make this
concept crisper and less fuzzy: culture is a system, a
dynamic organization that articulates people, places,
and practices into a coherent whole through individual-social, temporal-spatial, and behavioral-symbolic
dimensions and processes.
Why is there culture? Understanding the
p-model
Culture is systems of people, places, and practices that
are sustained through dimensions and processes. But,
for what purpose? I argue that power is one core feature of culture as a system, useful in understanding
why it exists and persists, and why it is enacted,
justified, or resisted (Figure 1). The purpose of culture
has long been debated. Culture, as a central aspect of
human evolution, is more than a simple functional
operation in the service of adaptation (see Gould &
Lewontin, 1979). It is not clear why some cultural systems persist over time, even when they can be taxing
or even harmful to individuals and groups, and why
other
practices
are
abandoned,
despite
being beneficial.
One explanation for continuity in practices that
have no clear adaptive function is that they serve a
symbolic purpose and provide cohesion to the group
(Northover & Cohen, 2018). Culture can serve to
organize communities to solve shared problems, like
developing agricultural practices for survival. When
some groups gain control of resources and land, over
time, power can become the purpose of culture. In
Western democracies, especially those that derive
from settler colonialism, the purposes of culture can
go beyond in-group cohesion and serve to exercise
power-over other groups (Belich, 2009).
But, what is power? Like culture, power can also be
considered a fuzzy concept, often invoked by social
scientists but rarely defined with precise boundaries
(Roscigno, 2011). There is a rich tradition of research
on power in the social sciences, including psychology
(Kraus & Torrez, 2020) and sociology (Roscigno,
2011). In sociology, power is best understood as
inequality or asymmetrical relations in stratified systems imbued in culture and history (Bonilla-Silva,
2010). Power provides a purpose, meaning, and structure to cultural systems (Roscigno, 2011). Surprisingly,
power has also been defined in terms of people, places, and practices.
One key tradition of defining power focuses on
people: getting others to do what you want them to
do, that is, as an exercise of power-over people (Allen,
2016; Foucault, 1983). Power is social, as it emerges
from the unequal, interactive, and bilateral relations
between people (Roscigno, 2011). The individualsocial dimension can illustrate the role of power in
culture. Individuals with considerable power can
employ discretionary tools to enforce the dominant
position of their group and to legitimize unfair treatment of the out-group by appealing to policies and
procedures (Roscigno, 2011), for instance, by enforcing “law and order” (Flamm, 2007). Conversely, individuals experiencing abuses of power can join or
mobilize their groups to challenge inequality through
collective action and identity affirmation, which is
another form of power (Neville et al., 2015).
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE
A second approach conceptualizes power in terms
of places: controlling access to physical environments,
organizations, or institutions. That is, power in places.
This entails the use of force to keep people in or out
of certain spaces at particular times, including neighborhoods, schools, prisons, companies, or any other
institution (Garcıa Coll et al., 1996). The temporalspatial dimension can illustrate the role of power in
culture. Despite apparent change in practices, organizations can remain robust places for the exercise of
power that guarantees hierarchies stay the same
(Roscigno, 2011). Institutions can invoke norms and
regulations to reinforce inequality, and at the same
time, legitimize the establishment (Gramsci, 1971;
Weber, 1978). But organizations can also create and
be created as places of resistance, committed to their
mission to promote equity and justice across space
and time, such as the National Association for the
Advancement
of
Colored
People
(NAACP;
Sullivan, 2009).
A third approach sees power in terms of practices:
an ability or a capacity to act and behave as desired,
that is, as a power-to practice (Allen, 2016). This
approach is consistent with Weber’s (1978) classic definition of power: “the probability that one actor
within a social relationship will be in a position to
carry out his own will despite resistance … ” (p. 53).
The concept of power is linked to the ability to act:
the Latin potere and the French pouvoir (Allen, 2016).
The behavioral-symbolic dimension can illustrate the
role of power in culture. Power is both absolute and
relative and both real and perceived (Roscigno, 2011).
For this reason, focusing on social inequality as evidence of power imbalance is important but insufficient. It neglects situations where the mere potential
or sign of power is sufficient to recreate hierarchy
(Roscigno, 2011). However, symbols can also be used
to protest and resist the abuse of power, galvanizing
attention, and facilitating cultural change, such as the
1968 Olympics Black Power salute (Carlos & Zirin,
2011), or the 2016 kneeling during the National
Anthem by Colin Kaepernick and other football players to protest police brutality and racism.
Considering the role of power in the definition of
culture can help make this concept crisper and less
fuzzy: culture is a system, a dynamic organization that
articulates people, places, and practices into a coherent whole through individual-social, temporal-spatial,
and behavioral-symbolic dimensions and processes,
with a purpose such as enacting, justifying, or resisting power-over people, power in places, and powerto practice.
315
Why power matters? Situating the p-model
Acknowledging the role of power in cultural systems
is a challenge for applied developmental sciences.
There is growing recognition that issues of power play
a key role in the development of minority and majority individuals, and of the importance of equity and
justice in the face of discrimination and social exclusion (Brown et al., 2019; Killen et al., 2016). In the
United States, these efforts are part of a tradition of
conceptualizations that attempt to make developmental science more in touch with reality. For instance,
Garcıa Coll and colleagues (Garcıa Coll et al., 1996)’s
integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children placed issues of power
at the core of our understanding of child development
(Causadias & Uma~
na-Taylor, 2018). This is necessary
because many frameworks have neglected the role of
social stratification, racism, oppression, and segregation (Garcıa Coll et al., 1996).
Denying the central role of power in culture is consistent with power evasion, a central feature of colorblind ideologies that reject the existence of structural
problems such as racism by emphasizing equal opportunities (Neville et al., 2013). According to this
approach, Americans live in a post-racial society,
inequalities can be explained by lack of individual
effort and merit, and we should not be focusing on
race but on hard work and overcoming adversities
(Bonilla-Silva, 2010). Translated to developmental sciences, a model that places power as one of the purposes of culture can be accused of lacking scientific
objectivity and being driven by a radical political
agenda. But this position is, in itself, an exercise of
power by developmental theorists, as they decide what
is considered science and what is not. That is, “one
aspect of power is the ability to determine what
counts as knowledge and to make knowledge appear
‘natural’ rather than a human construction” (Gjerde,
2004, p. 145).
The notion that power is one central feature of culture in America is supported by scientific evidence. In
the United States, hiring discrimination against racial/
ethnic minorities with the same education as White
applicants has continued over the last decades with
little improvement (Quillian et al., 2017). Compared
to their White peers, African Americans, American
Indians, and Latino men face higher lifetime risk of
being killed by the police (Edwards et al., 2019). For
young minority men between 25 and 35 years, police
killings are among the leading causes of death
(Edwards et al., 2019). These findings illustrate the
316
J. M. CAUSADIAS
existence and persistence of racism, a system that
shows the centrality of power in culture.
What is racism? Illustrating the p-model
Up to this point, the p-model remains an abstract
conceptualization. To illustrate its utility for applied
developmental science, I apply it to understanding
racism. Framing racism as a cultural system is consistent with a rich body of theory and research
(DiAngelo, 2018). Racism is “the racial ideology of a
racialized social system” (Bonilla-Silva, 2010, p. 218).
In the United States, White supremacy is the dominant strain of racism in which people of European descent claim the right to subordinate those of African,
Asian, Latin, and/or Native American descent (Feagin,
2013). Racism as a cultural system requires special
attention by developmental scientists given its impact
on all children, youth, and families (Seaton
et al., 2018).
The p-model can be used to show how practices
play a central role in maintaining a cultural system
like racism. Racism in the United States relies on the
practice of putting people into places with the purpose
of enacting power. This practice shows surprising continuity in space and time in the forced confinement of
Native Americans on reservations, the bondage of
African Americans on slave plantations, the imprisonment of Japanese Americans in internment camps, the
mass incarceration of Latino and African American
men in jails and prisons, the cruel treatment of
Central American refugees in detention centers, and
the prohibition of people from many Middle Eastern
and North African countries from entering the United
States. This tradition enacts racist ideas into practices
(Kendi, 2017).
The p-model can be used to approach racism as a
cultural system embedded in practices and behaviorsymbols. Cox (2003) examined the role of the United
Daughters of the Confederacy, founded in 1894, in
the preservation of confederate culture in America.
Cox (2003) documented how they effectively shaped
the perceptions and behaviors of generations of southerners by promoting the Lost Cause meta-narrative,
the untrue story of how the just and heroic
Confederacy defended state rights and the gallant
Southern way of life against the Northern aggressors,
minimizing the central role of slavery in the American
Civil War (1861–1865). The Daughters enabled the
cultural continuity of this myth through practices,
including teaching this narrative through revisionist
textbooks in schools (Cox, 2003).
The p-model can be used to approach racism as a
cultural system embedded in places that have continuity and change in time-spaces. The Daughters materialized the myth of the Lost Cause meta-narrative by
transforming the American landscape with monuments celebrating Confederate war criminals as heroes
(Cox, 2003). If the Confederacy was defeated in the
Civil War, the Daughters accomplished a cultural and
ecological victory in the preservation and redemption
of White supremacy in America (Cox, 2003).
The p-model can be used to approach racism as a
cultural system affecting people and damaging individual-groups. The cultural and ecological legacy from
the Daughters is far from a historic curiosity. It reverberates to this day, shaping the lives of present generations long after the Daughters passed away. Heather
Heyer was murdered in a terrorist attack at the “Unite
the Right” rally on August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville,
Virginia. The expressed purpose of this demonstration
of White supremacists was to protest against the
removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, a commander of
the Confederate States Army (Fausset & Feuer, 2017).
Affirming this ecological legacy through violence is a
process that maintains racism as a dominant cultural
system in America.
The p-model can be used to approach racism as a
system maintained by cultural processes. The cultural
process of myth construction through the propagation
of the Lost Cause meta-narrative was also a case of
ecological transformation of cities and parks into
shrines of heroes of the Confederacy. These cultural
narratives change in time and space, but they continue
to shape behaviors and symbols, hurting individuals
and groups. In part, the Community Lost meta-narrative drives the rising tide of White nationalist movements, arguing that once upon a time traditional
communities lived in harmony, but globalization,
diversity, and immigration destroyed their culture
(Causadias et al., 2018a). This narrative exacerbates
the feeling of status threat among Whites in America
that explains, in part, the rise of Donald J. Trump to
the presidency of the United States in 2016
(Mutz, 2018).
Finally, the p-model can be used to approach
racism as a cultural system of power and privilege.
These practices in places are enforced to exert power
over some people (racial/ethnic minorities) to preserve
the privilege of others (Whites). In relation to racism,
power-over people translates into domination, the
most extreme form of power (Blau, 1977).
Domination is unrestrained and unfair power asymmetry to control others and their actions
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE
(McCammon, 2018). Imperium (domination by the
state) and dominium (domination by private parties)
are different forms of domination that go back to
Roman times and traditional Roman republicanism
(Pettit, 1997, 2001). This distinction is useful in
understanding contemporary forms of racial domination, such as the state-sponsored racism of the
Trump administration (Causadias, 2019), as well as
corporate-sponsored racism profiting from mass
incarceration (Alexander, 2012).
In sum, the case of racism illustrates the p-model,
which shows how people, places, and practices,
expressed in dimensions and maintained through
processes, create and are created by a system. A system becomes more than a people, a place, and a practice. Once established, racism develops into a stable
organization that is more than its parts and cannot be
easily reduced to just one part. Thus, cultural systems
can also be considered irreducible units of analysis.
How is this useful? Implementing the p-model
The p-model can have useful applications for theory,
research, and practice in developmental science. In
theory, defining culture as a system highlights the
dynamic nature of the interplay between people, places, and practices. Systems theories emphasize the
importance of understanding dynamic connections
between different components of a system (von
Bertalanffy, 1976). This entails moving from conceptualizations that separate the causal effect of a single
component (people, places, or practices), to embracing
a new understanding of how systems operate as a
dynamic whole (Diez Roux, 2011).
This insight has dramatic implications for developmental theories, as it transforms our approach to the
development and health of individuals and groups,
from isolated factors to manifestations of a system
(Diez Roux, 2011). This can be challenging in the
study of culture and individual development, where
many systems are at play. For instance, racism and
sexism are interlocking cultural systems that work
synergistically to bolster each other, affecting the
development and adaptation of Black women in distinctive ways, as they experience unique challenges
that Black men and White women do not face (Allen,
2016; Crenshaw, 1991) .
In research, the p-model can be applied to study
cultural systems by examining population, environmental, and participatory dynamics. This involves
interrogating the system by looking at its components.
In the case of racism, this means engaging population
317
dynamics (people) by measuring individual, as well as
collective, experiences of discrimination. For instance,
population dynamics can be engaged by using subjective (perceived) and objective (audit studies)
approaches to measure racial discrimination (Seaton
et al., 2018). It also involves examining ecological
dynamics (places) by assessing spatial, as well as temporal, contexts of discrimination. For example, examining ecological dynamics can involve using
geographical (residential segregation) and historical
(redlining policies) methods. It involves investigating
participatory dynamics (practices) by evaluating
behavioral, as well as symbolic, engagement in communities by using quantitative (questionnaires) and
qualitative (ethnography) approaches.
The p-model can be applied to research by creating
multitrait-multimethod matrices that assess different
cultural dimensions and processes with different methods and measures (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Moreover,
a systems approach to research on culture requires
overcoming the doctrine of methodological individualism in the social sciences, in which social issues are
reduced to data about individuals (Diez-Roux, 1998). It
is critical to pursue new ways of evaluating cultural systems, not only measuring individuals. For instance,
Kleinman (1995) encouraged ethnographers to examine
“collective (both local and societal) and individual
(both public and intimate) levels of analysis” (p. 98).
In practice, the p-model can be applied in developmental science by informing education, policies, and
interventions. For instance, it can be applied by recognizing the role of power as one purpose of cultural
systems, especially by approaching educators, policymakers, and practitioners as powerful actors. In education, this involves acknowledging how tenured
professors benefit from their dominating position in
educational systems, holding considerable power-over
students. In policies, it includes appreciating the privileged role of policymakers in determining who gets
access to services and how, holding considerable
power in institutions. In interventions, it means recognizing how those designing and carrying out these
programs get to choose what behaviors are framed as
normal or abnormal, needing modification and treatment, choosing some groups as the standard of health
and criterion for comparison (Sroufe, 1970). They
hold considerable power-to intervene.
Making a cultural system more equitable requires
sharing power and decision making with students in
education, with citizens in policy-making, and with community members in interventions. Educators, policymakers, and practitioners can also use their power-to
318
J. M. CAUSADIAS
challenge and resist cultural systems. For instance, by
moving away from deficit models of racial/ethnic minorities to promoting positive youth development (GaylordHarden et al., 2018) and leveraging the healing potential
of racial socialization (Anderson & Stevenson, 2019).
Furthermore, a systems approach to power as one purpose of culture demands awareness that it cannot be
restricted to single issues to address through education,
policies, and interventions. That is, “power cannot be
theoretically reduced to a singular attribute, position or a
simple equation of tangible costs, benefits and balance/
imbalance” (Roscigno, 2011, p. 353). Fair practices
should aim at changing the system as a whole.
Limitations and future directions
Culture is a fuzzy concept, making it challenging to
define it. In this article, I introduced a p-model to
make culture a crisper and less fuzzy concept: a system of people, places, and practices, for a purpose
such of enacting, justifying, or resisting power.
However, there are several limitations to this model
that demand more attention and refinement, and
many important issues I neglected.
First, it is unlikely that this model can overcome
the difficult task of defining culture and reaching an
agreement on a definition. Ultimately, the problem “is
that no one is quite sure what culture is … it is fugitive, unsteady, encyclopedic, and normatively
charged … [some people] think it vacuous altogether,
or even dangerous, and would ban it from the serious
discourse of serious persons” (Geertz, 2000, p. 11).
Second, there are many more relevant components
of culture that I did not discuss in detail that deserve
more attention in the future, including cultural products and tools (Gibson et al., 1994). Despite this limited scope, attention to people, places, and practices
can help researchers clarify what they mean when
they use the term culture in theory, research, and
interventions. In addition, I ground this model in theory and research in the United States of America, despite its well-documented drawbacks (Arnett, 2008).
More attention is needed to understand to what
degree this model is applicable to other countries.
Third, there are many more important dimensions
and processes I did not discuss in detail that deserve
more attention in the future, including the internalexternal, proximal-distal, relative-universal, and
objective-subjective dimensions of culture. Despite
this limited scope, attention to the individual-social,
temporal-spatial, and behavioral-symbolic dimensions
and processes can inform how we think about culture,
not only how we measure it. For example, the individual-social dimension goes beyond measuring both
domains. Besides focusing on one (individual or
social) or both (individual and social), a system perspective can inform how they construct each other:
how the individual is social and the social is individual. The same is true for the temporal-spatial and the
behavioral-symbolic dimensions.
Fourth, framing culture as a system with a purpose
of sustaining power-over people, power in places, and
power-to practice can provide an incomplete picture.
This perspective can neglect cases in which power is
not the central purpose of culture. For instance, culture
can provide meaning, as illustrated in the development
of integrative, resilient, and articulated purpose in life
among adolescents who experience marginalization
(Sumner et al., 2018). Moreover, power is not necessarily oppressive, but can have a normative and beneficial
role, and can even be liberating. There are central features of culture, such as language, that can be emancipatory rather than unfair (Vygotsky, 1997).
Conclusion
I believe approaching culture as systems can help
improve applied work in developmental sciences.
Studies, measures, policies, and interventions focused
on specific people, place, and practice are crucial. They
help create preliminary connections among components of broader networks, gradually improving our
understanding of the whole system (Kendler, 2005). At
the same time, we should keep in mind that these
efforts are only addressing parts of a larger system and
do not provide a full account of culture. The pursuit of
cultural change that is necessary to overcome racism
demands tackling the system as a whole, as well as its
parts. If we are not up to the task, we risk continuing
to be a science of “excitement and pink lemonade”
(Cronbach, 1957, p. 671). If that is the case, fuzzy concepts would be the least of our problems.
Disclosure statement
I declare no conflicts of interest.
References
Alcala, L., Rogoff, B., Mejıa-Arauz, R., Coppens, A. D., &
Dexter, A. L. (2014). Children’s initiative in contributions
to family work in indigenous-heritage and cosmopolitan
communities in Mexico. Human Development, 57(2–3),
96–115. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356763
Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration
in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE
Allen, A. (2016). Feminist perspectives on power. In E. N.
Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall
2016 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/
entries/feminist-power/
Anderson, R. E., & Stevenson, H. C. (2019). RECASTing racial
stress and trauma: Theorizing the healing potential of racial
socialization in families. The American Psychologist, 74(1),
63–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000392
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American
psychology needs to become less American. The
American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
Belich, J. (2009). Replenishing the earth: The settler revolution
and the rise of the Angloworld. Oxford University Press.
Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture,
ethnicity, and race in American psychology. American
Psychologist, 48(6), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.48.6.629
Betzig, L. (2015). Culture. In J. Brockman (Ed.), This idea
must die. Scientific theories that are blocking progress (pp.
429–431). Harper Perennial.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive
theory of social structure (Vol. 7). Free Press.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Racism without racists: Color-blind
racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the
United States. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Boyer, P. (2015). Culture. In J. Brockman (Ed.), This idea
must die. Scientific theories that are blocking progress (pp.
426–428). Harper Perennial.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human:
Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage
Publications.
Brown, C. S., Mistry, R. S., & Yip, T. (2019). Moving from
the margins to the mainstream: Equity and justice as key
considerations for developmental science. Child
Development Perspectives, 13(4), 235–240. https://doi.org/
10.1111/cdep.12340
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and
discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0046016
Carlos, J., & Zirin, D. (2011). The John Carlos story: The
sports moment that changed the world. Haymarket Books.
Causadias, J. M. (2019). Are you researching the effects of the
Trump administration’s state-sponsored racism? Please call
it by its name! Medium: National Center for Institutional
Diversity. https://medium.com/national-center-for-institutional-diversity/are-you-researching-the-effects-of-the-trumpadministrations-state-sponsored-racism-5acab7d4ad3d
Causadias, J. M. (2013). A roadmap for the integration of
culture into developmental psychopathology. Development
and Psychopathology, 25(4 Pt 2), 1375–1398. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0954579413000679
Causadias, J. M., & Uma~
na-Taylor, A. J. (2018). Reframing
marginalization and youth development: Introduction to
the special issue. The American Psychologist, 73(6),
707–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000336
Causadias, J. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Overton, W. F.
(2018a). Moral meta-narratives, marginalization, and
319
youth development. The American Psychologist, 73(6),
827–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000252
Causadias, J. M., Vitriol, J. A., & Atkin, A. L. (2018b). Do we
overemphasize the role of culture in the behavior of racial/
ethnic minorities? Evidence of a cultural (mis)attribution
bias in American Psychology. The American Psychologist,
73(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000099
Cicchetti, D. (1984). The emergence of developmental
psychopathology. Child Development, 55(1), 1–7. https://
doi.org/10.2307/1129830
Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individualsocial antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky.
Human development, 39(5), 250–256.
Cole, M. (1979). Foreword. In U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.),
The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Harvard University Press.
Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D. (1971). The cultural
context of learning and thinking: An exploration in
experimental anthropology. Basic Books.
Cooper, C. R., & Denner, J. (1998). Theories linking
culture and psychology: Universal and communityspecific processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1),
559–584. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.559
Cox, K. L. (2003). Dixie’s Daughters: The united daughters
of the confederacy and the preservation of confederate
culture. University Press of Florida.
Crenshaw,
K.
(1991).
Mapping
the
margins:
Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against
women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific
psychology. American Psychologist, 12(11), 671–684.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043943
DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for
white people to talk about racism. Beacon Press.
Diez Roux, A. V. (2011). Complex systems thinking and
current impasses in health disparities research. American
Journal of Public Health, 101(9), 1627–1634. https://doi.
org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300149
Diez-Roux, A. V. (1998). Bringing context back into
epidemiology: Variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis.
American Journal of Public Health, 88(2), 216–222. https://
doi.org/10.2105/ajph.88.2.216
Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2017).
Moving beyond correlations in assessing the consequences of poverty. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 413–434.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044224
Durham, W. H. (1991). Coevolution: Genes, culture, and
human diversity. Stanford University Press.
Edwards, F., Lee, H., & Esposito, M. (2019). Risk of being
killed by police use of force in the United States by age,
race–ethnicity, and sex. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 116(34), 16793–16798. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1821204116
Fausset, R., Feuer, A. (2017). Far-Right groups surge into
national view in Charlottesville. The New York Times.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170816015808/https://www.
nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/far-right-groups-blaze-into-nationalview-in-charlottesville.html
Feagin, J. (2013). Systemic racism: A theory of oppression.
Routledge.
320
J. M. CAUSADIAS
Flamm, M. W. (2007). Law and order: Street crime, civil
unrest, and the crisis of liberalism in the 1960s. Columbia
University Press.
Foucault, M. (1983). Afterword: The subject and power. In
H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond
Structuralism and Hermeneutics (2nd ed.). University of
Chicago Press.
Fuller, B., & Garcıa Coll, C. (2010). Learning from Latinos:
Contexts, families, and child development in motion.
Developmental Psychology, 46(3), 559–565. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0019412
Garcıa Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P.,
Crnic, K., Wasik, B., & Garcıa, H. V. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in
minority children. Child Development, 67(5), 1891–1914.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1131600
Gaylord-Harden, N. K., Barbarin, O., Tolan, P. H., &
Murry, V. M. (2018). Understanding development of
African American boys and young men: Moving from
risks to positive youth development. The American
Psychologist, 73(6), 753–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/
amp0000300
Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretation of cultures: Selected essays
by Clifford Geertz. Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (2000). Available light: Anthropological reflections
on philosophical topics. Princeton University Press.
Gentile, B., Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J. M. (2014).
Generational cultures. In A. B. Cohen (Ed.), Culture reexamined: Broadening our understanding of social and evolutionary influences (pp. 31–48). American Psychological
Association.
Gibson, K. R., Gibson, K. R., & Ingold, T. (1994). Tools,
language and cognition in human evolution. Cambridge
University Press.
Gjerde, P. F. (2004). Culture, power, and experience: Toward a
person-centered cultural psychology. Human Development,
47(3), 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1159/000077987
Gonzales, N. A., Knight, G. P., Gunn, H. J., Tein, J. Y.,
Tanaka, R., & White, R. M. (2018). Intergenerational gaps
in Mexican American values trajectories: Associations with
parent-adolescent conflict and adolescent psychopathology.
Development and Psychopathology, 30(5), 1611–1627.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579418001256
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San
Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the
adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 205(1161),
581–598. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1979.0086
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q.
Hoare & G.N. Smith Eds.). International Publishers.
Haack, S. (1996). Deviant logic, fuzzy logic: Beyond the
formalism. University of Chicago Press.
Kendal, J. (2011). Cultural niche construction and human
learning environments: Investigating sociocultural
perspectives. Biological Theory, 6(3), 241–250. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13752-012-0038-2
Kendi, I. X. (2017). Stamped from the beginning: The definitive history of racist ideas in America. Random House.
Kendler, K. S. (2005). Toward a philosophical structure for
psychiatry. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(3),
433–440. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.3.433
Killen, M., Rutland, A., & Yip, T. (2016). Equity and justice
in developmental science: Discrimination, social exclusion, and intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 87(5),
1317–1336. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12593
Kitayama, S., & Uskul, A. K. (2011). Culture, mind, and the
brain: Current evidence and future directions. Annual
Review of Psychology, 62, 419–449. https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev-psych-120709-145357
Kleinman, A. (1995). Writing at the margin: Discourse between
anthropology and medicine. University of California Press.
Kraus, M., & Torrez, B. (2020). A psychology of power that is
embedded in societal structures. Current Opinion in Psychology,
33, 86–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.018
Kroeber, A. L., Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical
review of concepts and definitions. Papers. Peabody
Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology. Harvard University.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard
University Press.
Lonner, W. J., & Malpass, R. S. (1994). When psychology
and culture meet: An introduction to cross-cultural
psychology. In W. J. Lonner & R. S. Malpass (Eds.),
Psychology and culture (pp. 1–12). Allyn & Bacon.
Luo, R., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2017). Reciprocity
between maternal questions and child contributions during book-sharing. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 38,
71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.08.003
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves:
A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on
Psychological Science: a Journal of the Association for
Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1745691610375557
McCammon, C. (2018). Domination. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.),
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018
ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/
domination/
M€
uller, U., & Newman, J. L. (2008). The body in action:
Perspectives on embodiment and development. In W. F.
Overton, U. M€
uller, & J. L. Newman (Eds.),
Developmental perspectives on embodiment and consciousness (pp. 313–342). Taylor & Francis.
Mutz, D. C. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship,
explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 115(19), E4330–E4339. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1718155115
Neville, H. A., Awad, G. H., Brooks, J. E., Flores, M. P., &
Bluemel, J. (2013). Color-blind racial ideology: Theory,
training, and measurement implications in psychology.
The American Psychologist, 68(6), 455–466. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0033282
Neville, H. A., Viard, B., & Turner, L. (2015). Race and recognition: Pathways to an affirmative Black identity.
Journal of Black Psychology, 41(3), 247–271. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0095798414523290
Northover, S. B., & Cohen, A. B. (2018). Understanding
religion from cultural and biological perspectives. In
J. M. Causadias, E. H. Telzer, & N.A. Gonzales (Eds.),
Handbook of culture and biology (pp. 55–77). Wiley.
Odling-Smee, J., & Laland, K. N. (2011). Ecological inheritance and cultural inheritance: What are they and how do
they differ? Biological Theory, 6(3), 220–230. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13752-012-0030-x
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE
Overton, W. F. (2010). Life-span development: Concepts
and issues. In R. M. Lerner (Ed. in Chief) & W. F.
Overton (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of life-span development:
Vol. 1. Cognition, biology, and methods across the lifespan
(pp. 1–29). Wiley.
Overton, W. F. (2015). Processes, relations and relationaldevelopmental-systems. In R. M. Lerner (Ed. Chief),
W. F. Overton, & P. C. M. Molenaar (Vol. Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology and developmental science.
Theory and method (7th ed., pp. 9–62). Wiley.
Overton, W. F., & M€
uller, U. (2012). Metatheories, theories,
and concepts in the study of development. In I. B.
Weiner(Ed. Chief), R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, &
J. Mistry (Eds.), Developmental psychology. Volume 6 of
the Handbook of psychology (pp. 19–58). Wiley.
Pahlke, E., Bigler, R. S., & Suizzo, M. A. (2012). Relations
between colorblind socialization and children’s racial bias:
Evidence from European American mothers and their preschool children. Child Development, 83(4), 1164–1179.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01770.x
Perez-Brena, N. J., Wheeler, L. A., Rodrıguez De Jes
us,
S. A., Updegraff, K. A., & Uma~
na-Taylor, A. Y. (2017).
The educational and career adjustment of Mexican-origin
youth in the context of the 2007/2008 economic recession. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 149–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.006
Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and
government. Clarendon Press.
Pettit, P. (2001). A theory of freedom: From the psychology
to the politics of agency. Oxford University Press.
Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H.
(2017). Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no
change in racial discrimination in hiring over time.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(41),
10870–10875. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706255114
Quintana, S. M., Aboud, F. E., Chao, R. K., ContrerasGrau, J., Cross, W. E., Hudley, C., Hughes, D., Liben,
L. S., Nelson-Le Gall, S., & Vietze, D. L. (2006). Race,
ethnicity, and culture in child development:
Contemporary research and future directions. Child
Development, 77(5), 1129–1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8624.2006.00951.x
Raeff, C. (2006). Individuals in relation to others:
Independence and interdependence in a kindergarten
classroom. Ethos, 34(4), 521–557. https://doi.org/10.1525/
eth.2006.34.4.521
Raeff, C. (2011). Distinguishing between development and
change: Reviving organismic-developmental theory.
Human Development, 54(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/
10.1159/000324334
Raeff, C. (2017). Going where the action is to conceptualize
the person. New Ideas in Psychology, 44, 7–13. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2016.11.006
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.
Romo, L. F., Mireles-Rios, R., & Lopez-Tello, G. (2014).
Latina mothers’ and daughters’ expectations for autonomy at age 15 (La Quincea~
nera). Journal of Adolescent
Research,
29(2),
271–294.
https://doi.org/10.1177/
0743558413477199
Roscigno, V. J. (2011). Power, revisited. Social Forces, 90(2),
349–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sor034
321
Seaton, E. K., Gee, G. C., Neblett, E., & Spanierman, L. (2018).
New directions for racial discrimination research as inspired
by the integrative model. The American Psychologist, 73(6),
768–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000315
Shweder, R. A. (2000). The psychology of practice and the
practice of the three psychologies. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 3(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467839X.00065
Snowdon, C. T. (2018). Introduction to animal culture: Is
culture uniquely human? In J. M. Causadias, E. H.
Telzer, & N.A. Gonzales (Eds.), Handbook of culture and
biology (pp. 81–104). Wiley.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2012). What is culture. A
compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core Concepts,
pp. 1–22. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/globalpad/openhouse/interculturalskills/global_pad_-_what_is_culture.pdf.
Sroufe, L. A. (1970). A methodological and philosophical
critique of intervention-oriented research. Developmental
Psychology, 2(1), 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028598
Sue, S. (2009). Ethnic minority psychology: Struggles and
triumphs. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology,
15(4), 409–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017559
Sullivan, P. (2009). Lift every voice: The NAACP and the
making of the civil rights movement. The New Press.
Sumner, R., Burrow, A. L., & Hill, P. L. (2018). The
development of purpose in life among adolescents who
experience marginalization: Potential opportunities and
obstacles. The American Psychologist, 73(6), 740–752.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000249
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental niche:
A conceptualization at the interface of child and culture.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9(4),
545–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502548600900409
Szapocznik, J., & Kurtines, W. M. (1993). Family psychology and cultural diversity: Opportunities for theory,
research, and application. American Psychologist, 48(4),
400–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.400
Telzer, E. H. (2010). Expanding the acculturation gapdistress model: An integrative review of research. Human
Development, 53(6), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1159/
000322476
Tooby, J. (2015). Learning and culture. In J. Brockman
(Ed.), This idea must die. Scientific theories that are blocking progress (pp. 432–436). Harper Perennial.
Triandis, H. C. (2007). Culture and psychology: A history
of the study of their relationships. In S. Kitayama & D.
Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp.
59–76). Guilford Press.
Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture: Researches into the
development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and
custom, etc. Murray.
Uma~
na-Taylor, A. J., Quintana, S. M., Lee, R. M., Cross,
W. E., Rivas-Drake, D., Schwartz, S. J., Syed, M., Yip, T.,
Seaton, E., … Ethnic and Racial Identity in the 21st
Century Study Group. (2014). Ethnic and racial identity
during adolescence and into young adulthood: An integrated conceptualization. Child Development, 85(1),
21–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12196
von Bertalanffy, L. (1976). General system theory:
Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.
322
J. M. CAUSADIAS
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky:
Problems of the theory and history of psychology (Vol. 3).
Springer Science & Business Media.
Wapner, S., & Demick, J. (1998). Developmental analysis: A holistic, developmental, systems-oriented perspective. In R. M.
Lerner (Ed.), Theoretical models of human development.
Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 761–805). Wiley.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford University Press.
Witherington, D. C. (2007). The dynamic systems approach
as metatheory for developmental psychology. Human
Development, 50(2–3), 127–153. https://doi.org/10.1159/
000100943

Purchase answer to see full
attachment