How do ethnocentrism and cultural relativism affect research in cross-cultural psychology?

• A. Ethnocentrism eliminates bias; cultural relativism increases bias.
• B. Ethnocentrism biases interpretation; cultural relativism eliminates bias.
• C. Ethnocentrism biases interpretation; cultural relativism contextualizes practices within their culture.
• D. Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism have no impact on interpretation.

Answer: (C)

The main idea is how researchers’ biases shape interpretation in cross-cultural studies and how adopting a culturally informed perspective changes that interpretation. Ethnocentrism biases interpretation because it judges other cultures by one’s own norms, values, and categories. This can distort what researchers observe, making unfamiliar practices seem deficient or strange simply because they don’t fit their home culture’s framework.

Cultural relativism, on the other hand, pushes researchers to understand beliefs, behaviors, and practices within their own cultural context—considering history, social roles, and local meanings. This approach contextualizes what is observed, so interpretations are anchored in how the culture itself makes sense of those practices rather than how they would be viewed from outside.

So the right idea is that ethnocentrism biases interpretation, while cultural relativism contextualizes practices within their culture. It’s not that either approach completely eliminates bias, and saying there’s no impact would ignore well-supported effects on how data are read and understood across cultures.