Etic-Emic Distinction

For centuries, the field of psychology has been interested in understanding behavior and cultures. In effect, social and behavioral scientists have identified two critical approaches in understanding human behavior and cultures: an etic perspective and an emic perspective. Based on universal comparisons of behaviors that can be generalized across cultures, the etic approach is [Page 1145]consistent with the use of quantitative hypothetical-deductive methods wherein researchers or outsiders are the primary judges of the validity of an experience. Conversely, based in a belief that unique values and norms of a given culture are key to understanding behaviors meaningful to indigenous members of a given society, the emic approach is consistent with qualitative research methodologies wherein members of the society or insiders become the primary sources of validity of a particular experience. With the increasing knowledge that behavior or phenomena can be universal and yet be culturally bound, the etic-emic distinction and how these two perspectives are negotiated in theory, research, assessment, and practice have become germane to the field of counseling psychology.

Originally coined in 1954 by the linguist Kenneth L. Pike, the etic-emic distinction was first referenced in psychology by David French in 1963 when he examined the relationship between anthropology and studies of perception and cognition. In 1969, John W. Berry adapted its use to cross-cultural psychology. Since this period, scholars engaged in multicultural psychological research have employed these two epistemologies to conceptualize and operationalize both comparative and indigenous research.

Interestingly, although well established and widely used in different fields—linguistics, anthropology, education, medicine, philosophy, psychiatry, social work, sociology, public health, psychology, folklore, semiotics, and management—these terms have been viewed in opposition to each other, resulting in a long-standing controversy over the efficacy of the two perspectives. In fact, there have been several shifts in the debate on its dichotomous versus symbiotic nature. In essence, the controversy over the definitions and applications of the approaches has continued to fuel the etic-emic debate.