A critical look at the findings from cross-cultural comparisons.

Fundamentally cross-cultural psychology exists to contribute to the meaning of cultural differences. Since respondents in any culture evaluate psychological stimuli from the framing of their own cultural values it is essential to know how such bias affects the results. For example Peng et al (1997) noted that respondents in cultural groups pay primary attention to their own cultures in evaluating their beliefs and values. This dominant presence may actually result in an underestimate of the role of underlying cultural values since these are seen as part of daily life and less noteworthy. In evaluating the self as being high or low on collectivism the respondent uses as reference the internalized stereotype of his/her own culture for comparison purposes (Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002).

At the same time globalization and associated values of modernity call into question many of the value based research results. The cultural dichotomies of individualism-collectivism may be inaccurate or a stereotypic simplification particularly in the face of the knowledge explosion and new communication methodology available almost ubiquitously worldwide (Hermans & Kempen, 1998). Even in the most remote dogmatic societies there are individual variances that cannot be measured by ecological level variables. Collectivism is related to conformity, yet we see many societies described as collectivistic where people are willing to risk all to be free. Freedom may prove a variable of universal value that trumps stereotypic secondary cultural values.

There is in all cross-cultural comparisons a bias in selection of the topic studied as derived from the cultural frame of the investigator. Further, the studies that are reported are those achieving statistical significance. That scientific procedure in turn may also produce bias since the non-reported studies of not statistically significant results may be a better representation of the cultural reality. In summarizing research in a given field we are also more likely to attend to interesting or extreme results that do not necessarily represent valid reality in particular if based on small and non-representative samples.

It is necessary to consider the method of sample selection and the validity of the method employed in cross-cultural studies. In the case of comparative studies that require cross-cultural validity in the methodology employed. Remember also that any study regardless of relevance to the populations studied represent only a fragment of the universe of psychological traits in a given culture and a portion of the cultural context. Cross-cultural research offers us a window into the psychological reality in varying cultures, but never the complete picture. We cannot know for sure what aspect of culture create the differences observed although different cultural groups may vary on the issue studied. Cultural average (ecological) studies provide some understanding of cultural dimensions related to psychological variables and it is possible to relate means of psychological variables to cultural dimensions. More informative however, is where specific aspects of culture can be related in a measurable way to psychological variables. However, even with these studies a researcher cannot be certain that there may not be other aspects of culture not measured that might also explain the behavior studied or for that matter the direction of the causal influence.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 711