However, further research on a larger sample base was conducted by Hudson who also found that perception was a learnt process. Hudson looked at Bantu, European and Indian children and were shown a drawing of a man with a spear, antelope and an elephant. They found that all children started primary school struggled with depth cues. However, by the end of primary school all European children were able to correctly understand depth cues. The Bantu children still struggled. This supports Tunball’s claim that perception is a learnt process.
Conflicting research was conducted by Gibson and Walk. They asked mothers of infants to call their infant over a glass table that showed a cliff. Almost all the infants stopped at the point it looked like the depth changed with supports the idea that depth perception is an innate process not a learnt process.
A further explanation into shape constancy by Allport et al. They found that individuals from western cultures perceived an illusion created by rotating a trapezoid as it seen as a window. Zulus living in rural settings were not susceptible to this illusion due to less experience with such shares or rectangular windows and this suggested that shape constancy was a learned process.
It should be noted that this research used illusions which has been criticised. Pollark et al found that Europeans were more susceptible to the muller-lyer illusion because their retinas permitted them to detect contours better suggesting a biological reason for cultural differences rather than learning.
Another criticism is that there is imposed etic because one test or measure may be suitable for one culture but not another. Allport et al’s study could be explained through the test making little sense to the Zulus rather than them not learning shape constancy which means they may have shown different findings.
In addition the small sample of participants may not be representative of the whole culture and therefore generalisations cannot be made.
Overall, Cross-culture studies are reductionistic as it reduces perception which is a very complex subject into simple factors like environment or learning. Also a lot of research fails to consider biological factors such as the retina that Pollark suggested which means that research doesn’t explain perception as a whole and there must be other factors that come into play.
A lot of research favours the nature debate over nurture. This is because most research suggests that perception is down to learning and the environment. However, there must be a biological and natural reasoning behind perception like Gibson and Walk showed with the infants.
In addition, research is mostly deterministic because it suggests that everyone in that culture will act in that specific way. It fails to consider free will and how some people in the culture may show different signs to perception and may act differently.
Also, cross cultural research is prone to experimenter bias as researchers are more inclined to observe behaviour that supports their hypothesis rather than being observant to similarities in perception which means results may not be as valid and reliable.
In conclusion, although a lot of cross cultural research is useful in studying differences in perceptual development, it does have limitations. Research is usually difficult to generalise due to small samples and is a target to experimenter bias. Therefore findings cannot purely be reliable and there may be other factors that need to be taken into account.
by
ellouise1997hotmailcom (student)
