Commentary

Human Development 2010;53:3338

DOI: 10.1159/000268138
Understanding Development in
Cultural Contexts: How Do We Deal
with the Complexity?
Commentary on Mistry and Wu
Jean S. Phinney
Institute of Human Behavior, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. , USA
Key Words
Developmental psychology Immigrants Multicultural contexts
The field of developmental psychology increasingly recognizes the complexity
of interacting influences and processes that underlie human growth and change over
time. This complexity has been spelled out by developmental systems theory [Lerner,
2006; Lerner, Ma, & Smith, 2005], which proposes that the basic processes of devel-
opment involve bidirectional relations between multiple levels of organization. Indi-
viduals are seen as actively embedded in a dynamic, multilevel contextual milieu
evolving in historical time. As a result, developmental processes cannot be under-
stood adequately through laboratory studies that focus on a limited number of con-
trolled variables and aim at identifying theories assumed to be generalizable across
time and place. As Sorell [2005] pointed out, [developmental systems] theory stands
as a useful reminder of the limits of generalizability of research findings (p. 347).
Widespread lip service of this view of development, however, has not been ac-
companied by efforts to spell out in detail its implications for research or to apply it
to the understanding of particular situations. Studying human development from a
systems perspective is very difficult, given the wide diversity of influences that affect
development, such as parenting styles, family structures, educational settings, and
communities, together with societal and historical events such as economic fluctua-
tions and rapidly changing technology. All young people must navigate complex
worlds of home, school, friends, work, and leisure, in contexts that are continually
changing. Yet relatively little research takes seriously the need to deal with the com-
plexity and contextually embedded nature of human development. Even for those
who accept the importance of viewing development as dynamic and contextually
Jean S. Phinney
Institute of Human Behavior
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720 (USA)
E-Mail jphinne@berkeley.edu
2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
0018716X/10/05310033$26.00/0
Accessible online at:
www.karger.com/hde
Fax +41 61 306 12 34
E-Mail karger@karger.ch
www.karger.com
Human Development
2010;53:3338
34 Phinney

embedded, it is a daunting task to frame research questions and design studies that
acknowledge, let alone deal with, this complexity. As a result, contextual factors are
rarely addressed in depth, and much research continues to emphasize universal pro-
cesses.
A further level of complexity is added to the process due to increasing globaliza-
tion that has led to calls for greater attention to cultural context in development [Ar-
nett, 2008]. Arnett [2009] argued that psychology needs to adapt its methods and
theoretical approaches to its uniquely human topic, in all its cultural complexity and
diversity (p. 574). In the United States, the large numbers of immigrants and mi-
norities in communities throughout the country are forcing psychologists to attend
to ethnic and cultural differences. Developmental systems theory should provide a
useful approach to understanding development of children and youth from minor-
ity and immigrant cultures, in emphasizing multiple levels of organization [Lerner,
2006].
Among scholars concerned with cultural diversity, there is a growing interest in
finding ways to integrate cultural differences and developmental processes [Jensen,
in press]. How can scholars best include cultural factors in their research, to provide
a better understanding of development for ethnic minority and immigrant children
and youth? Researchers must first acknowledge that these young people face the
same developmental tasks as their peers, as they construct their lives in complex and
changing environments. In addition, ethnic minority youth deal on a daily basis
with contrasting and often conflicting attitudes, values, practices, and expectations
derived from dual frames of reference, their home or ethnic culture and the culture
of the larger society as embodied in their school and among their peers. They there-
fore face unique challenges as they move toward maturity in multicultural con-
texts.
The paper by Mistry and Wu [this issue] makes a valuable start toward under-
standing the complex interactive worlds in which immigrants grow up and establish
themselves in a new setting. The authors suggest a model of the multiple factors re-
lated to their development and consider the interactions among them. Their model
provides an abundance of information on the conceptualization of development for
minority youth. In addition, it has implications for understanding all young people
living in modern multicultural contests.
A strength of the model proposed by Mistry and Wu is the identification of key
factors across three contextual levels that interact to create conditions under which
children learn to navigate their multiple cultural worlds and identities. These factors
are not presented as static variables that directly affect development; rather, the au-
thors emphasize the interactive nature of the variables they examine. In contrast to
a static view of culture as a social address, the authors provide a clear description of
their conceptualization of culture as the meaning systems, symbols, and practices
through which people interpret experience. Their approach is in keeping with cur-
rent perspectives of both developmental and cultural psychology that emphasize the
interactive nature of the processes and actions by which the context and the indi-
vidual are mutually influential.
Mistry and Wu see their model as a bridge between sociocultural and develop-
mental psychological perspectives. Their goal is to provide a framework for under-
standing how immigrant and minority youth develop expertise in navigating across
cultures. They argue that this expertise represents a developmental domain, spe-
Development in Cultural Contexts 35 Human Development
2010;53:3338
cific to children who are from immigrant or minority backgrounds, but one which
is not universal. They suggest that because of the diversity of contexts in which they
develop, there are multiple pathways and multiple outcomes, rather than a single de-
velopmental sequence. However, the authors state that they do not try to spell out
the specific ways in which this increasing expertise may represent a developmental
pathway.
An examination of the concept of navigating across cultures suggests a number
of components that show clear developmental trajectories. Young people are agents
in their own development, making decisions and choices that ultimately shape their
developmental pathways. For minority and immigrant youth, this process involves
dealing with two or more differing sets of norms, values, and expectations in their
lives. As they move between the worlds of their ethnic culture of origin and the cul-
ture of the larger society, they make choices as to how to handle the demands of their
multiple worlds [Cooper & Davis, 2005]. As their cognitive abilities and contextual
demands change with age, the choices they make also change, influencing their
pathways in systematic ways.
One obvious area where developmental change has been documented is in the
comprehension of racial/ethnic differences. Not only is the awareness of ethnic and
racial differences age dependent, as Mistry and Wu suggest; in addition, the under-
standing of these differences changes systematically with age. Quintana [1998] has
shown that cognitive developmental level influences the way in which children un-
derstand ethnicity. Young children think about ethnicity in literal and concrete
terms, for example, defined by food, customs, and language. With increasing cogni-
tive competence, children begin to develop a group consciousness and to understand
ethnicity in terms of norms and values common to a group. With greater ability to
handle abstractions, young people can understand the social and political conse-
quences of their ethnic background and to question observed inequalities. Increas-
ing levels of cognitive ability contribute to the ability to understand the cultural en-
vironment in more differentiated and integrated ways. At the same time, differing
environments and the transitions between them create new situations that lead to
varying individual pathways.
Associated with these changes are changes with age in the meaning-making
processes that come into play as young people interpret and respond to their experi-
ences in differing cultural contexts. As Mistry and Wu note, these processes mediate
the relationship between context and the other components of their model. As chil-
drens knowledge and understanding of the environment change in systematic ways
with age [Quintana, 1998], their responses to the context will likewise change. The
understandings that children have of their environment are thus often as important
as, or more important than, the environment objectively described. Furthermore,
each individuals environment changes with age, as opportunities to make ones own
choices increase. The extent to which the increasingly complex understandings of
the environment lead to structural changes is an important area for future re-
search.
Similarly, the formation of identity, which Mistry and Wu show to be strongly
influenced by contextual factors, has a clear developmental trajectory. Mistry and
Wu provide a definition of identity as the sameness and continuity of the persons
psychological functioning, interpersonal behavior, and commitments to roles, val-
ues, and beliefs [Ct, cited by Mistry & Wu].
Human Development
2010;53:3338
36 Phinney

However, this stability of identity is not evident in children; rather an identity
is formed as a result of the actions and decisions of an individual in response to both
developmental needs (e.g., to resolve questions of purpose and goals in life and
achieve a coherent sense of self) and the actual and perceived demands and oppor-
tunities in the cultural community in which he or she lives [Phinney & Baldelomar,
in press]. Forming an identity is a developmental process involving exploration of
the options within a given domain and a decision or commitment to a position with-
in that domain. It involves a progression from an initial position of diffusion through
some sort of exploration or questioning phase, to a commitment reflecting a rela-
tively secure and stable sense of self [Marcia, 1980].
For immigrants and minorities, as Mistry & Wu point out, identity formation
is complicated by their multiple identifications and affiliations, with their own eth-
nic culture, with the larger society, with other minority groups, and, in many cases,
with various multicultural communities. The cultural identity issue to be resolved is
how to position oneself in relation to existing groups. This process involves explora-
tion and commitment for all youth, but it varies across cultural contexts in terms of
the depth and breadth of the exploration and of the type of commitment [Phinney
& Baldelomar, in press]. Within self-contained traditional settings, the exploration
may involve primarily in-depth learning about ones own group, whereas in multi-
cultural settings one may explore a broad range of cultural values and practices.
These differences can lead to varying pathways and endpoints, including a commit-
ment solely to ones ethnic culture, to the national culture, to a bicultural identity
that encompasses both, or perhaps to an alternative identity. In spite of the differing
pathways and outcomes, there is a progression in normal development from an un-
formed or diffuse identity to a secure committed identity. The actual process by
which young people navigate their multiple worlds in the process of forming an iden-
tity can be illustrated by studying the choices immigrant youth make when con-
fronted with cultural differences. A particular identity challenge they face is that of
reconciling their own individual needs for autonomy with cultural values such as
family expectations for obedience, retention of close family ties, and deference to
parental expectations. Parents are likely to retain traditional cultural values from
their country of origin while adolescents more readily adopt the norms of their peers
in the new society [Phinney, Ong, & Madden, 2000]. Thus, disagreements over issues
such as dating, spending time with family, and choosing a college major are likely to
increase as children get older.
A study of adolescents and young adults disagreements with parents over cul-
tural values [Phinney, Kim-Jo, Osorio, & Vilhjalmsdottir, 2005] shows the ways in
which young people navigate among their own needs and parental wishes, and how
these change with age. With increasing age, young people from immigrant back-
grounds are more likely to assert their autonomy, as expected from a developmental
perspective, but do so in a respectful way that retains their cultural values. For ex-
ample, they may indicate that they would make their own choice for a college major
but also take courses in business or science that their parents favored.
Nevertheless, there is wide individual variation in the choices that are made.
Even within a family, one child may remain highly traditional while another adopts
more mainstream values. Furthermore, parents can influence these differences, for
example, by expecting one child to be the carrier of culture for the family [Pyke,
2005]. Further research is needed to get a better picture of the developmental chang-
Development in Cultural Contexts 37 Human Development
2010;53:3338
es that interact with particular contextual factors to influence the various pathways
by which young people from minority and immigrant backgrounds navigate their
passage to maturity.
A consideration of the multiple levels of context together with developmental
changes and the interactions among them raises awareness of the complexity of
studying phenomena such as navigating across cultures. The problem for researchers
is how to contribute to our understanding of development in cultural context while
acknowledging this complexity. In response to the obvious need for better research
dealing with diversity, researchers are using more diverse samples, including mea-
sures of cultural values, acculturation, and ethnic identity, and reporting differenc-
es among ethnic groups. Yet ethnicity and culture are still often included as social
addresses. Even the most ambitious studies cannot begin to include all the relevant
variables outlined in a model such as that presented by Mistry and Wu.
Although it is impossible to study all aspects simultaneously, the Mistry and Wu
model can help researchers identify particular components on which to focus. The
model highlights a number of important factors that are rarely examined in research.
Furthermore, in planning research on a particular component, the model can be of
value in spelling out all the things to consider in trying to understand a particular
phenomenon, even if they cannot be included in a study. Retrospectively, it can high-
light possible factors that a specific study cannot address. The obligatory paragraph
on limitations of a published study rarely goes far enough in reminding the reader
what one cannot conclude from a study. The model can serve as a reminder for au-
thors reporting their results to describe in detail the context of the study, including
the factors that might alter findings if they had been controlled or included as mod-
erators or mediators. The model can also serve to encourage more researchers to
consider alternative methods, including ethnographies, interviews, and qualitative
assessments that can give a richer and more complete picture of a particular phe-
nomenon in a given context, albeit only a small slice of it.
However, there remains little consensus on how to deal with the complexity of
studying development in cultural context. Because of the importance and difficulty
of conducting research in this area, both developmental and cultural psychologists
need to encourage more discussion of the topic, through conference presentations,
journal articles, and courses. Young scholars in particular would benefit from more
guidance in this area.
Furthermore, because the study of development generally has become more
complex, the need for discussion extends to the entire field. An interesting exercise
would be to think about how well researchers studying typical samples of middle-
class American youth have considered the multiple levels outlined by Mistry and
Wu. Factors such as social class, human and social capital, and parental belief sys-
tems have sometimes, but not usually, been included in research. Furthermore, all
young people growing up today, not only immigrants, need to navigate increasingly
diverse settings, more intergroup contact, greater exposure to other languages, and
the like [Lerner, 2006]. The ways in which youth handle these challenges have im-
portant implications for their development and for society in general.

Human Development
2010;53:3338
38 Phinney

References
Arnett, J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 63, 602614.
Arnett, J. (2009). The neglected 95%: A challenge to psychologys philosophy of science. American Psy-
chologist, 64, 571574.
Cooper, C., & Davis, H. (2005). Mapping concepts of contexts, diversity, and pathways across disci-
plines. In C. Cooper, C. Garca Coll, W. Bartko, H. Davis, & C. Chatman (Eds.), Developmental
pathways through middle childhood: Rethinking contexts and diversity as resources . Mahwah: Erl-
baum.
Jensen, L. (Ed.) (in press). Bridging cultural and developmental psychology: New syntheses in theory, re-
search and policy . New York: Oxford University Press.
Lerner, R. (2006). Developmental science, developmental systems, and contemporary theories of hu-
man development. In R. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 1: Theo-
retical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 117). New York: Wiley.
Lerner, R., Ma, L., & Smith, L. (2005). Developmental systems theories. In C. Fisher & R. Lerner (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of applied developmental science. Vol. 1 (pp. 353357). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp.
159187). New York: Wiley.
Phinney, J., & Baldelomar, O. (in press). Identity development in multiple cultural contexts. In L. Jensen
(Ed.), Bridging cultural and developmental psychology: New syntheses in theory, research, and pol-
icy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Phinney, J., Kim-Jo, T., Osorio, S., & Vilhjalmsdottir, P. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in adoles-
cent-parent disagreements: Ethnic and developmental factors. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20,
839.
Phinney, J., Ong, A., & Madden, T. (2000). Cultural values and intergenerational value discrepancies in
immigrant and non-immigrant families. Child Development, 71, 528539.
Pyke, K. (2005). Generational deserters and black sheep: Acculturative differences among siblings in
Asian immigrant families. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 491517.
Quintana, S. (1998). Childrens developmental understanding of ethnicity and race. Applied and Preven-
tive Psychology, 7, 2745.
Sorell, G. (2005). Developmental contextualism. In C. Fisher & R. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied
developmental science. Vol. 1 (pp. 344348). Thousand Oaks: Sage.