The debate over the relative merits of adopting functional universal psychological principles, processes, and constructs (etics) versus particular structural idiosyncratic characteristics and behaviors distinct to specific cultural groups (emics) has been present in the anthropological and psychological literature for decades. Evident in the discussion is that the basic principles and processes tend to be universal, whereas theoretical concepts - and to a greater extent personal attributes, behavioral patterns, norms, beliefs, attitudes, and values - have an indigenous base. Recurring crises within the Euro-Meso-North-American scientific psychological tradition are traceable to the lack of cultural and eco-systemic sensitivity and an attempt to indiscriminately generalize findings across behavioral settings. Psychology requires an approach that integrates behavioral and cultural models for which an independent measure of structural sociocultural variables are included. The main argument presented within this manuscript is that the measurement of historic-sociocultural premises (norms and beliefs) achieve such a purpose.

The debate over the relative merits of adopting functional universal psychological principles, processes, and constructs (etics) versus particular structural idiosyncratic characteristics and behaviors distinct to specific cultural groups (emics) has been present in the anthropological and psychological literature for decades. Evident in the discussion is that the basic principles and processes tend to be universal, whereas theoretical concepts - and to a greater extent personal attributes, behavioral patterns, norms, beliefs, attitudes, and values - have an indigenous base. Recurring crises within the Euro-Meso-North-American scientific psychological tradition are traceable to the lack of cultural and eco-systemic sensitivity and an attempt to indiscriminately generalize findings across behavioral settings. Psychology requires an approach that integrates behavioral and cultural models for which an independent measure of structural sociocultural variables are included. The main argument presented within this manuscript is that the measurement of historic-sociocultural premises (norms and beliefs) achieve such a purpose.

The debate over the relative merits of adopting functional universal psychological principles, processes, and constructs (etics) versus particular structural idiosyncratic characteristics and behaviors distinct to specific cultural groups (emics) has been present in the anthropological and psychological literature for decades. Evident in the discussion is that the basic principles and processes tend to be universal, whereas theoretical concepts - and to a greater extent personal attributes, behavioral patterns, norms, beliefs, attitudes, and values - have an indigenous base. Recurring crises within the Euro-Meso-North-American scientific psychological tradition are traceable to the lack of cultural and eco-systemic sensitivity and an attempt to indiscriminately generalize findings across behavioral settings. Psychology requires an approach that integrates behavioral and cultural models for which an independent measure of structural sociocultural variables are included. The main argument presented within this manuscript is that the measurement of historic-sociocultural premises (norms and beliefs) achieve such a purpose.