In this article I define and describe the current state of internationalization in psychology. Internationalization refers here to the approach in which existing or new psychological theories, methods, procedures, or data across cultures are synthesized so as to create a more culture-informed, inclusive, and globally applicable science and profession. This approach is essential to advance psychology beyond its Euro-American context of development and to achieve a more global applicability of its theories and professional procedures. Internationalization already has led to a better integration of cultural aspects in various psychological theories, to more insight into how to deal with methodological aspects of intact group comparisons (such as bias and equivalence), and to the development of guidelines in areas such as test development, test adaptations, ethics codes, and Internet testing. I review systemic and scientific climate factors in psychology that thwart the progress of internationalization, and conclude by suggesting methods of enhancing internationalization, which is essential for developing a truly universal psychology.

From a methodological perspective cross-cultural studies in psychology differ in three dimensions. First, cross-cultural psychological studies can be exploratory or test specific hypotheses. Second, some cross-cultural studies compare countries or ethnic groups while other cross-cultural studies relate specific characteristics of a country or ethnicity (e.g., socialization patterns or religiosity) to psychological variables. Third, studies can compare either constructs (e.g., do Chinese and Kenyans mean the same when they say that a person is intelligent?) or score levels (e.g., are Americans more extravert than Italians?). A classification of cross-cultural psychological studies, based on the three dimensions, is presented and examples are given.

No abstract

Bias can occur in the context of comparative studies and refers to the presence of nuisance factors. If scores are biased, their psychological meaning is not the same in the groups studied. Bias is not an inherent characteristic of an instrument, but arises in the application of an instrument in at least two cultural groups. As a consequence, an instrument is not inherently biased, but may become so when scores from specific cultural groups are compared.