Book contents
- School Bullying in Different Cultures
- School Bullying in Different Cultures
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Foreword
- Foreword
- Part I Social awareness and research on bullying and cyberbullying
- Part II Direct cross-national data comparisons
- Part III Issues in cross-national comparisons
- 11 Theoretical and methodological issues in making cross-national and cross-cultural comparisons
- 12 Educational systems
- 13 Individualism/collectivism as predictors of relational and physical victimization in Japan and Austria
- 14 Linguistic issues in studying bullying-related phenomena
- Part IV Practical measures to reduce bullying problems
- Part V Conclusions
- Index
- References
11 - Theoretical and methodological issues in making cross-national and cross-cultural comparisons
from Part III - Issues in cross-national comparisons
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 April 2016
Book contents
- School Bullying in Different Cultures
- School Bullying in Different Cultures
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Foreword
- Foreword
- Part I Social awareness and research on bullying and cyberbullying
- Part II Direct cross-national data comparisons
- Part III Issues in cross-national comparisons
- 11 Theoretical and methodological issues in making cross-national and cross-cultural comparisons
- 12 Educational systems
- 13 Individualism/collectivism as predictors of relational and physical victimization in Japan and Austria
- 14 Linguistic issues in studying bullying-related phenomena
- Part IV Practical measures to reduce bullying problems
- Part V Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
In comparing psychological phenomena across cultures, researchers tend to follow one of three approaches: absolutist, relativist, or universalist. These are defined and described. A host of issue needs to be considered before any firm conclusions about cultural differences in people may be drawn. This chapter examines a range of these. The first is equivalence; different types are construct nonequivalence/inequivalence; structural equivalence’ measurement unit/metric equivalence’ and scalar equivalence. A second is bias; different types are construct bias; and method bias (including sample bias, administration bias. instrument bias and item bias). Thirdly, reference group effects are considered. The benefits of utilizing forced-choice measures for cross-cultural comparisons is considered. Through increased efforts of researchers in the past few decades, many are attempting to resolve the conflicting cross-cultural assumptions that appear to be grounded more in stereotypes than in actual evidence. Yet scholars are far from consensus. If and when differences are found, it is important to view them with caution, and to consider all possible explanations, especially large differences, as they likely result from cultural biases in assumptions, theories, models, and measures.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- School Bullying in Different CulturesEastern and Western Perspectives, pp. 211 - 228Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Allik, J. and McCrae, R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., de Vries, R. E., Perugini, M., Gnisci, A., and Sergi, I. (2006). The HEXACO model of personality structure and indigenous lexical personality dimensions in Italian, Dutch, and English. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 851–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., and De Raad, B. (2004). Factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benet-Martinez, V. and Waller, N. G. (1997). The Big Seven factor model of personality description: Evidence for its cross-cultural generality in a Spanish sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 701–718.Google Scholar
Benet-Martínez, V. and Waller, N. G. (1997). Further evidence for the cross-cultural generality of the big seven factor model: Indigenous and imported Spanish personality constructs. Journal of Personality, 65, 567–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., and Segall, M. H. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. (Original work published 1961).Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. and Stewart, S. M. (2006). The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 287–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S., and Zhang, J. (2010). Convergent validity of the Chinese personality assessment inventory and the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory-2: Preliminary findings with a normative sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., and Leong, F. T. L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66, 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, G. W. and Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 31, 187-212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Church, A. T., Alvarez, J. M., Mai, N. T. Q., French, B. F., Katigbak, M. S., and Ortiz, F. A. (2011). Are cross-cultural comparisons of personality profiles meaningful? Differential item and facet functioning in the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1068–1089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Credé, M., Bashshur, M.R., and Niehorster, S. (2010). Reference group effects in the measurement of personality and attitudes. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 390–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., and Costa, P. T. (2009). Assessing the universal structure of personality in early adolescence: The NEO-PI-R and NEO-PI-3 in 24 cultures. Assessment, 16, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Blas, L., Forzi, M., and Peabody, D. (2000). Evaluative and descriptive dimensions from Italian personality factors. European Journal of Personality, 14, 279–290.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eslea, M., Menesini, E., Morita, Y., O’Moore, M., Mora-Merchan, J. A., Pereira, B., Smith, P. K., and Zhang, W. (2004). Friendship and loneliness among bullies and victims: Data from seven countries. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funder, D. C. and Guillaume, E. (2013). Revised RSQ for international research (version 3.15). Unpublished manuscript, Riverside: University of California.Google Scholar
Funder, D.C., Guillaume, E., Kumagi, S., Kawamoto, S., and Sato, T. (2012). The person‐situation debate and the assessment of situations. Japanese Journal of Personality, 21, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furr, R. M., Wagerman, S. A., and Funder, D. C. (2010). Personality as a manifest in behavior: Direct behavioral observation using the revised Riverside Behavioral Q-sort (RBQ-3.0). In Agnew, C. R., Carlston, D. E., Graziano, W. G., and Kelly, J. R. (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 186–204). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gudykunst, W. B., Gao, G., Nishida, T., Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Wang, G., and Barraclough, R. A. (1989). A cross-cultural comparison of self-monitoring. Communications Research Reports, 6, 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., and Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903–918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendricks, A. A. J., Perugini, M. Angleitner, A. Ostendorf, F., Johnson, J. A., De Fruyt, F., Hřebíčková, M., Kreitler, S., Murakami, T., Bratko, D., Conner, M., Nagy, J., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., and Ruisel, I. (2003). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory: Cross-cultural generalizability across 13 countries. European Journal of Personality, 17, 347–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C. D., Church, A. T., and Katigbak, M. S. (1997). Identifying cultural differences in items and traits: Differential item functioning in the NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 192–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui, C. H. and Triandis, H. C. (1985). The instability of response sets. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui, C. H. and Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 296–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Rieman, R., and Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of facet level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: support for a hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1556–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katigbak, M. S., Church, T. A., and Akamine, T. X. (1996). Cross-cultural generalizability of personality dimensions: Relating indigenous and imported dimensions in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, H. and Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 785–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konishi, C., Hymel, S., Zumbo, B. D., Li, Z., Taki, M., Slee, P., Pepler, D., Sim, H., Craig, W., Swearer, S. M., and Kwak, K (2009). Investigating the comparability of a self-report measure of childhood bullying across countries. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulas, J. T. and Stachowski, A. A. (2009). Middle category endorsement in odd-numbered Likert response scales: Associated item characteristics, cognitive demands, and preferred meanings. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 489–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C. and Lindsay, G. (2007). An analysis of the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 781–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonner, W. J. and Adamapoulos, J. (1997). Culture as antecedent to behavior. In Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H. and Pandey, J. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 43–-83). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Marks, D. F. (2011). IQ variations across time, race, and nationality: An artifact of differences in literacy skills. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50, 643–-664.Google Scholar
Markus, H. R. and Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsella, A. J., Dubanoski, J., Hamada, W. C., and Morse, H. (2000). The measurement of personality across cultures: Historical, conceptual, and methodological issues and considerations. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R. (2001). Trait psychology and culture: Exploring intercultural comparisons. Journal of Personality, 69, 819–846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R. and Allik, J. (2002). The five-factor model of personality across cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R., and Costa, P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In Wiggins, J. S. (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Nye, C. D., Roberts, B. W., Saucier, G., and Zhou, X. (2008).Testing the measurement equivalence of personality adjective items across cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1524–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, C. E. and Mirowsky, J. (1984). Socially-desirable response and acquiescence in a cross-cultural survey of mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Stein, J. A., Lee, J. W., and Jones, P. S. (2006). Assessing cross-cultural differences through use of multiple-group invariance analyses. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takano, Y. (2013). Japanese culture explored through experimental design. In Kurlyo, A. (Ed.), Intercultural communication. (pp. 405–412). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Takano, Y. and Sogon, S. (2008). Are Japanese more collectivistic than Americans? Examining conformity in in-groups and the reference-group effect. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanzer, N. K. (1995). Cross-cultural bias in Likert-type inventories: Perfect matching factor structures and still biased? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11, 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teo, A. R. and Gaw, A. C. (2010). Hikikomori, a Japanese culture-bound syndrome of social withdrawal? A proposal for DSM-5. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198, 444–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Vijver, F. J. R. and Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
van de Vijver, F. J. R. and Leung, K. (2011). Equivalence and bias: A review of concepts, models, and data-analytic procedures. In van de Vijver, F. J. R. and Matsumoto, D. (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 15–45). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van de Vijver, F. and Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54, 119-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, B. M. and Lieberman, M. D. (2010). Is there a genetic contribution to cultural differences? Collectivism, individualism, and genetic markers of social sensitivity. Social and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N., Yoshimura, K., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., Livesley, W.J., and Jang, K. L. (2006). Is the genetic structure of human personality universal? A cross-cultural twin study from North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 987–998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., and Schug, J. (2008). Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science, 19, 579–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Y., Read, S. J., and Miller, L. C. (2006). A taxonomy of situations from Chinese idioms. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 750–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by