Cross-cultural research allows you to identify important similarities and differences across cultures. This research approach involves comparing two or more cultural groups on psychological variables of interest to understand the links between culture and psychology better.
As Matsumoto and van de Vijver (2021) explain, cross-cultural comparisons test the boundaries of knowledge in psychology. Findings from these studies promote international cooperation and contribute to theories accommodating both cultural and individual variation.
However, there are also risks involved. Flawed methodology can produce incorrect cultural knowledge. Thus, cross-cultural scientists must address methodological issues beyond those faced in single-culture studies.
Methodology
Cross-cultural comparative research utilizes quasi-experimental designs comparing groups on target variables.
Cross-cultural research takes an etic outsider view, testing theories and standardized measurements often derived elsewhere.
- Studies can be exploratory, aimed at increasing understanding of cultural similarities and differences by staying close to the data.
- In contrast, hypothesis-testing studies derive from pre-established frameworks predicting specific cultural differences. They substantially inform theory but may overlook unexpected findings outside researcher expectations (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).
Each approach has tradeoffs. Exploratory studies broadly uncover differences but have limited explanatory power. While good for revealing novel patterns, exploratory studies cannot address the reasons behind cross-cultural variations.
Hypothesis testing studies substantially inform theory but may overlook unexpected findings. Optimally, cross-cultural research should combine elements of both approaches.
Ideal cross-cultural research combines elements of exploratory work to uncover new phenomena and targeted hypothesis testing to isolate cultural drivers of observed differences (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).
Cross-cultural scientists should strategically intersect exploratory and theory-driven analysis while considering issues of equivalence and ecological validity.
Other distinctions include: comparing psychological structures versus absolute score levels; analysis at the individual versus cultural levels; and combining individual-level data with country indicators in multilevel modeling (Lun & Bond, 2016; Santos et al., 2017)
Methodological Considerations
Cross-cultural research brings unique methodological considerations beyond single-culture studies. Matsumoto and van de Vijver (2021) explain two key interconnected concepts – bias and equivalence.
Bias
Bias refers to systematic differences in meaning or methodology across cultures that threaten the validity of cross-cultural comparisons.
Bias signals a lack of equivalence, meaning score differences do not accurately reflect true psychological construct differences across groups.
There are three main types of bias:
- Construct bias stems from differences in the conceptual meaning of psychological concepts across cultures. This can occur due to incomplete overlap in behaviors related to the construct or differential appropriateness of certain behaviors in different cultures.
- Method bias arises from cross-cultural differences in data collection methods. This encompasses sample bias (differences in sample characteristics), administration bias (differences in procedures), and instrument bias (differences in meaning of specific test items across cultures).
- Item bias refers to specific test items functioning differently across cultural groups, even for people with the same standing on the underlying construct. This can result from issues like poor translation, item ambiguity, or differential familiarity or relevance of content.
Techniques to identify and minimize bias focus on achieving equivalence across cultures. This involves similar conceptualization, data collection methods, measurement properties, scale units and origins, and more.
Careful study design, measurement validation, data analysis, and interpretation help strengthen equivalence and reduce bias.
Equivalence
Equivalence refers to cross-cultural similarity that enables valid comparisons. There are multiple interrelated types of equivalence that researchers aim to establish:
- Conceptual/Construct Equivalence: Researchers evaluate whether the same theoretical construct is being measured across all cultural groups. This can involve literature reviews, focus groups, and pilot studies to assess construct relevance in each culture. Claims of inequivalence argue concepts can’t exist or be understood outside cultural contexts, precluding comparison.
- Functional Equivalence: Researchers test for identical patterns of correlations between the target instrument and other conceptually related and unrelated constructs across cultures. This helps evaluate whether the measure relates to other variables similarly in all groups.
- Structural Equivalence: Statistical techniques like exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis are used to check that underlying dimensions of multi-item instruments have the same structure across cultures.
- Measurement Unit Equivalence: Researchers determine if instruments have identical scale properties and meaning of quantitative score differences within and across cultural groups. This can be checked via methods like differential item functioning analysis.
Multifaceted assessment of equivalence is key for valid interpretation of score differences reflecting actual psychological variability across cultures.
Establishing equivalence requires careful translation and measurement validation using techniques like differential item functioning analysis, assessing response biases, and examining practical significance. Adaptation of instruments or procedures may be warranted to improve relevance for certain groups.
Building equivalence into the research process reduces non-equivalence biases. This avoids incorrect attribution of score differences to cultural divergence, when differences may alternatively reflect methodological inconsistencies.
Procedures to Deal With Bias
Researchers can take steps before data collection (a priori procedures) and after (a posteriori procedures) to deal with bias and equivalence threats. Using both types of procedures is optimal (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).
Designing cross-cultural studies (a priori procedure)
Simply documenting cultural differences has limited scientific value today, as differences are relatively easy to obtain between distant groups. The critical challenge facing contemporary cross-cultural researchers is isolating the cultural sources of observed differences (Matsumoto & Yoo, 2006).
This involves first defining what constitutes a cultural (vs. noncultural) explanatory variable. Studies should incorporate empirical measures of hypothesized cultural drivers of differences, not just vaguely attribute variations to overall “culture.”
Both top-down and bottom-up models of mutual influence between culture and psychology are plausible. Research designs should align with the theorized causal directionality.
Individual-level cultural factors must also be distinguished conceptually and statistically from noncultural individual differences like personality traits. Not all self-report measures automatically concern “culture.” Extensive cultural rationale is required.
Multi-level modeling can integrate data across individual, cultural, and ecological levels. However, no single study can examine all facets of culture and psychology simultaneously.
Pursuing a narrow, clearly conceptualized scope often yields greater returns than superficial breadth (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021). By tackling small pieces thoroughly, researchers collectively construct an interlocking picture of how culture shapes human psychology.
Sampling (a priori procedure)
Unlike typical American psychology research drawing from student participant pools, cross-cultural work often cannot access similar convenience samples.
Groups compared across cultures frequently diverge substantially in background characteristics beyond the cultural differences of research interest (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).
Demographic variables like educational level easily become confounds making it difficult to interpret whether cultural or sampling factors drive observed differences in psychological outcomes. Boehnke et al. (2011) note samples of greater cultural distance often have more confounding influences.
Guidelines exist to promote adequate within-culture representativeness and cross-cultural matching on key demographics that cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the research hypotheses. This allows empirically isolating effects of cultural variables over and above sample characteristics threatening equivalence.
Where perfect demographic matching is impossible across widely disparate groups, analysts should still measure and statistically control salient sample variables that may form rival explanations for group outcome differences. This unpacks whether valid cultural distinctions still exist after addressing sampling confounds.
In summary, sampling rigor in subject selection and representativeness support isolating genuine cultural differences apart from method factors, jeopardizing equivalence in cross-cultural research.
Designing questions and scales (a priori procedure)
Cross-cultural differences in response styles when using rating scales have posed persistent challenges. Once viewed as merely nuisance variables requiring statistical control, theory now conceptualizes styles like social desirability, acquiescence, and extremity as a meaningful individual and cultural variation in their own right (Smith, 2004).
For example, an agreeableness acquiescence tendency may be tracked with harmony values in East Asia. Efforts to simply “correct for” response style biases can thus discount substantive culture-linked variation in scale scores (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).
Guidelines help adapt item design, instructions, response options, scale polarity, and survey properties to mitigate certain biases and equivocal interpretations when comparing scores across groups.
It remains important to assess response biases empirically through statistical controls or secondary measures. This evaluates whether cultural score differences reflect intended psychological constructs above and beyond style artifacts.
Appropriately contextualizing different response tendencies allows judiciously retaining stylistic variation attributable to cultural factors while isolating bias-threatening equivalence. Interpreting response biases as culturally informative rather than merely as problematic noise affords richer analysis.
In summary, response styles exhibit differential prevalence across cultures and should be analyzed contextually through both control and embrace rather than simplistically dismissed as invalid nuisance factors.
A Posteriori Procedures to Deal With Bias
After data collection, analysts can evaluate measurement equivalence and probe biases threatening the validity of cross-cultural score comparisons (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).
For structure-oriented studies examining relationships among variables, techniques like exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and multidimensional scaling assess similarities in conceptual dimensions across groups. This establishes structural equivalence.
For comparing group mean scores, methods like differential item functioning, logistic regression, and standardization identify biases causing specific items or scales to function differently across cultures. Addressing biases promotes equivalence (Fischer & Fontaine, 2011; Sireci, 2011).
Multilevel modeling clarifies connections between culture-level ecological factors, individual psychological outcomes, and variables at other levels simultaneously. This leverages the nested nature of cross-cultural data (Matsumoto et al., 2007).
Supplementing statistical significance with effect sizes evaluates the real-world importance of score differences. Metrics like standardized mean differences and probability of superiority prevent overinterpreting minor absolute variations between groups (Matsumoto et al., 2001).
In summary, a posteriori analytic approach evaluates equivalence at structural and measurement levels and isolates biases interfering with valid score comparisons across cultures. Quantifying practical effects also aids replication and application.
Ethical Issues
Several ethical considerations span the research process when working across cultures. In design, conscious efforts must counteract subtle perpetuation of stereotypes through poorly constructed studies or ignorance of biases.
Extensive collaboration with cultural informants and members can alert researchers to pitfalls (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).
Recruiting participants ethically becomes more complex globally, as coercion risks increase without shared assumptions about voluntary participation rights.
Securing comprehensible, properly translated informed consent also grows more demanding, though remains an ethical priority even when local guidelines seem more lax. Confidentiality protections likewise prove more intricate across legal systems, requiring extra researcher care.
Studying sensitive topics like gender, sexuality, and human rights brings additional concerns in varying cultural contexts, necessitating localized ethical insight.
Analyzing and reporting data in a culturally conscious manner provides its own challenges, as both subtle biases and consciously overgeneralizing findings can spur harm.
Above all, ethical cross-cultural research requires recognizing communities as equal partners, not mere data sources. From first consultations to disseminating final analyses, maintaining indigenous rights and perspectives proves paramount to ethical engagement.
References
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Bond, M. H., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2011). Making scientific sense of cultural differences in psychological outcomes: Unpackaging the magnum mysteriosum. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 75–100). Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, R., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2011). Methods for investigating structural equivalence. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 179–215). Cambridge University Press.
Hambleton, R. K., & Zenisky, A. L. (2011). Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 46–74). Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, T., Shavitt, S., & Holbrook, A. (2011). Survey response styles across cultures. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 130–176). Cambridge University Press.
Matsumoto, D., Grissom, R., & Dinnel, D. (2001). Do between-culture differences really mean that people are different? A look at some measures of cultural effect size. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032004007
Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. P. (2023). Culture and psychology (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Matsumoto, D., & van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2021). Cross-cultural research methods in psychology. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 97-113). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000318-005
Matsumoto, D., & Yoo, S. H. (2006). Toward a new generation of cross cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 234-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00014.x
Nezlek, J. (2011). Multilevel modeling. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 299–347). Cambridge University Press.
Shweder, R. A. (1999). Why cultural psychology? Ethos, 27(1), 62–73.
Sireci, S. G. (2011). Evaluating test and survey items for bias across languages and cultures. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 216–243). Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022103260380
van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2009). Types of cross-cultural studies in cross-cultural psychology. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1017
