Which statement would NOT describe cross-cultural helping according to Pederson et al.'s definition?

Which statement would NOT describe cross-cultural helping according to Pederson et al.'s definition?

• A. Since providers are immersed in foreign cultures with unfamiliar behavior patterns, it is a bit like culture shock.
• B. The helping process should be continually adapted to specific cultural needs of different clients.
• C. Providers should abide by traditional helping philosophies and guard against direct intervention into the life of the client.
• D. The provider is more dependent on the client for helping in defining the process itself.

Answer: (C)

Cross-cultural helping rests on adapting the helping process to fit the client’s cultural context, collaborating with the client, and letting cultural norms guide what is done in therapy or help. It involves staying aware of one’s own biases, being open to different ways of thinking and acting, and continually tailoring approaches to the client’s needs rather than sticking to a fixed, one-size-fits-all method. The statement that would not describe this approach is the one that says providers should adhere to traditional helping philosophies and guard against direct intervention in the client’s life. That view implies sticking rigidly to established methods and keeping a distance from the client’s lived experience, which undermines the collaborative, culturally responsive stance Pederson and colleagues emphasize. The other statements align with cross-cultural helping: recognizing that immersion in unfamiliar cultures can feel like culture shock; continually adapting the helping process to the client’s cultural needs; and placing more of the process definition in the client’s hands, reflecting a collaborative, client-centered approach.

Cross-cultural helping rests on adapting the helping process to fit the client’s cultural context, collaborating with the client, and letting cultural norms guide what is done in therapy or help. It involves staying aware of one’s own biases, being open to different ways of thinking and acting, and continually tailoring approaches to the client’s needs rather than sticking to a fixed, one-size-fits-all method.

The statement that would not describe this approach is the one that says providers should adhere to traditional helping philosophies and guard against direct intervention in the client’s life. That view implies sticking rigidly to established methods and keeping a distance from the client’s lived experience, which undermines the collaborative, culturally responsive stance Pederson and colleagues emphasize.

The other statements align with cross-cultural helping: recognizing that immersion in unfamiliar cultures can feel like culture shock; continually adapting the helping process to the client’s cultural needs; and placing more of the process definition in the client’s hands, reflecting a collaborative, client-centered approach.