et al., 2001). This finding challenged the premise of universal cognitive processes. However, the hallmark of a maturing science is not the absence of disagreement, but the presence of a continuous, critical examination of evidence. This is exemplified by the critical reevaluation of the Müller-Lyer illusion, a classic "case study" of cultural perception. Amir and Firestone (2025) challenge the long-held narrative that susceptibility to this illusion is culturally determined, arguing instead for more universal perceptual mechanics and noting inconsistencies in the original cross-cultural evidence. These cultural differences are not confined to perception; they manifest across multiple levels of psychological functioning from basic cognition to the sense of self. For example, Wang's (2004) work on autobiographical memory shows how independent self-construals promote detailed "me" memories, whereas interdependent self-construals foster schematic "we" memories. Remarkably, these culturally patterned cognitive styles are now detectable even in non-human systems 20 years later. Lu, Song, and Zhang (2025) found that large language models like GPT show a more holistic and interdependent orientation when prompted in Chinese versus English, demonstrating that cultural signatures in human thought are being reproduced in the AI trained on our cultural outputs. This is not a crisis for cultural psychology; it is the engine. These discussions bring us back to the table to ask better questions. It shifts the research focus from whether culture matters to how, when, and why it matters. Does culture create entirely different perceptual architectures, or does it tune with universal cognitive processes? The contrast between Nisbett's evidence for fielddependent attention and Amir 2016). This transformation extends to clinical and applied settings, where Western-based interventions may not translate across cultural contexts, requiring a fundamental rethinking of how we understand and support psychological well-being across diverse cultural settings (Turpin Knutson et al., 2023;Moussa Rogers et al., 2024;Szkody et al., 2024). This model even extends to data re-analysis initiatives, where researchers collectively re-analyze existing datasets to evaluate replicability and robustness (e.g., Aczel et al., in press). To ensure these collaborations are not symbolic, attention must be given not only to participant representation but to equitable authorship (Coles, DeBruine Nolan et al., 2025aNolan et al., , 2025bNolan et al., , 2026aNolan et al., , 2026b)). Far from a simple checklist, the ICUP model represents psychological education as a truly global endeavor. Its core strength lies in its culturally inclusive design, which is grounded in the principle that foundational psychological competences must be valuable and applicable across all personal, professional, and community contexts, irrespective of a student's cultural background or career path (Cranney et al., 2025). The model's commitment to inclusivity is further demonstrated by its explicit linkage of psychology education to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), thereby positioning the discipline as essential for tackling global challenges like health equity and climate action (Nolan et al., 2025b). This outward focus cultivates global citizenship, ethical awareness, and, most critically, cultural humility, equipping students to critically engage with and look beyond dominant Western paradigms. The practical relevance of this culturally-attuned framework is evidenced by its adaptation in 15 national contexts, demonstrating its remarkable global utility (teaching case studies can be found here: https://osf.io/5hj7g/).Frontiers in Psychology -Cultural Psychology section is committed to rectifying a longstanding imbalance: for too long, cultural psychology has been treated as an afterthought, a "side dish" to the "main course" of Western psychological science. This marginalization has resulted in an incomplete understanding of human behavior, where Western perspectives are the default and other cultural viewpoints are secondary. Our section is pioneering a transformation to place culture at the very center of psychological inquiry. We recognize that meaningful change requires more than symbolic representation; it demands a restructuring of how cultural psychology is conducted, evaluated, and disseminated. This commitment drives our specific editorial priorities. We see particular promise in research that examines how individuals and communities navigate globalizing forces while maintaining cultural continuity, revealing the complex ways cultural-ecological systems shape human development, cognition, and well-being in ways that often diverge from established Western models. This commitment to exploring processes beyond traditional East-West dichotomies (e.g., Kitayama we are committed to developing a curriculum and research that reflects a truly global understanding of psychology, preparing the next generation of psychologists to approach the field with cultural humility and sensitivity. Realizing this vision and supporting the groundbreaking research entails embracing alternative theories and methodologies, which is an institutional challenge as much as an intellectual one. Funding agencies and universities must lead this shift by creating equitable grant streams and reforming tenure criteria to actively support the community-engaged research, Indigenous scholarship, and non-WEIRD frameworks that generate these alternatives. Journals and editors are essential partners in this work. They can mandate "Context Justification" sections, requiring authors to detail the cultural parameters and limitations of their findings regardless of a study's sample origin (including both Global Majority and Global Minority contexts). Concurrently, diversifying reviewer pools to include regional and cultural experts creates the necessary editorial space for these alternative approaches to be rigorously validated. Within academic departments, this means moving beyond token inclusion to making strategic hires of scholars whose work inherently challenges the mainstream, ensuring these perspectives reshape core theory. Finally, transforming pedagogy through frameworks like the ICUP is how these alternative understandings become the new foundation for the next generation. Looking ahead, our section is committed to being an active catalyst in the reshaping of psychological science. Our editorial team brings together scholars from diverse backgrounds dedicated to amplifying voices from non-Western contexts and implementing initiatives that support research grounded in global knowledge systems and culturally embedded experiences. Moving beyond surface-level comparisons, we advocate deep, context-sensitive approaches that illuminate how cultural meaning systems shape the mind. This coordinated, multi-level commitment is our tangible pathway from critiquing a WEIRD-centric past to constructing a genuinely equitable and globally relevant science of human behavior.
Fanli Jia (Thu,) studied this question.