Cultural Sensitivity and Contextualization
Historically, psychologists and researchers have long assumed that all humans we alike and that psychology could be studied in a universal manner. However, culture has strong implications in thought patterns and psychological characteristics, as suggested in Trimble (2003). Indeed, values, beliefs, and The common North American practice of using college student participants in psychological research has indeed been criticized, as it may produce biased results with generalizability that is restricted to a limited sociocultural group –higher socioeconomic status, predominantly white, higher IQ, etc. In the past decades, more criticism of these methods has been rising as many groups are left out. Indeed, North America is a culturally and ethnically highly diverse, and assessment in mental health should take it into account.
Training in cultural sensitivity would indeed be a valuable asset for any clinician and researcher in psychology, as it would potentially increase inclusivity and flexibility of development of clinical interventions, theories, assessment of mental illness, and dissemination. Cultural sensitivity is however a complex concept that will likely require extensive research towards the development of training programs and assessment methods for psychologists. Trimble (2003) highlights the importance of having an in-depth understanding of patients’ ethnocultural background not only to be able to create a stronger therapeutic bond, but also to better understand the origin of their issues and properly adapt treatment to their specific needs (Trimble, 2003).
Beyond cultural relativism in clinical assessment is the question of contextualization of symptoms and behaviors. Individuals living in difficult circumstances may very well present with clinically significant symptoms of mental illness. However, those symptoms may very well be adaptive behaviors in a specific situation. The line between diagnosis and contextualization can indeed be blurry, and it is a clinician’s duty to properly draw it.
This entry raises the questions of cultural and contextual sensitivity in diagnosis and assessment, dissemination, research, and treatment. While similar illnesses and symptoms can be observed in very different cultures and contexts, how can one know when relativism and contextualizing should stop and when clinical objectivity should begin? The current scales and test batteries used by the gold standard that the DSM-5 currently is makes little to no effort to provide any sort of cultural sensitivity and contextualization. In situations where clinically concerning symptoms and behaviors seem to originate from difficult circumstances, as opposed to individual characteristics or psychological predispositions, should the diagnostic manual still be used with clinical objectivity? What guidelines can a psychologist follow in order to properly assess one’s distress and need for treatment while simultaneously contextualizing the clinical presentation of mental illnesses?
Trimble, J.E. (2003). Cultural Competence and Cultural Sensitivity. In M. Prinstein & M. Patterson, (Eds.), The Portable Mentor: Expert Guide to a Successful Career in Psychology (pp. 13–32). NY; Kluwer Academic/Plenum
