Considering cultural responsiveness in the creation of the International Competences for Undergraduate Psychology (ICUP) model: What can psychology learn?
Résumé fourni par la source
This article aims to describe the development of foundational competencies relevant to cultural responsiveness (CR), within the context of the International Competences for Undergraduate Psychology (ICUP) model (Nolan et al., 2025). The underlying premise of the ICUP model is that the acquisition of undergraduate-level foundational psychology competences can and should have high value in personal, work, and community contexts—regardless of graduate career destination. A targeted background on CR is given, followed by brief descriptions of the International Collaboration on Undergraduate Psychology Outcomes (ICUPO) project (which created the ICUP model; International Collaboration on Undergraduate Psychology Outcomes, n.d.) and of the CR competences themselves. Then, procedural aspects of the ICUPO project relevant to CR are described, followed by quantitative and qualitative approaches to exploring the CR of the diverse ICUPO Committee members. The findings are discussed in terms of implications for (a) psychology educators—in particular, they need to possess the capacity to be culturally responsive in order to be able to support students in acquiring or improving their own CR; (b) psychology education leaders undertaking undergraduate curricular renewal; and (c) the sustainable future of the discipline of psychology.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Considering cultural responsiveness in the creation of the International Competences for Undergraduate Psychology (ICUP) model: What can psychology learn?
- Date Crossref
- 01/06/2026
- Éditeur
- American Psychological Association (APA)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.