4.2 Article

Addressing Methodological Challenges in Culture-Comparative Research

期刊

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 49, 期 5, 页码 691-712

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022022117738086

关键词

methodology; cultural psychology; psychodiagnostics; measurement; statistics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We address methodological challenges in cross-cultural and cultural psychology. First, we describe weaknesses in (quasi-)experimental designs, noting that cross-cultural designs typically do not allow any conclusive evidence of causality. Second, we argue that loose adherence to methodological principles of psychology and a focus on differences, while neglecting similarities, is distorting the literature. We highlight the importance of effect sizes and discuss the role of Bayesian statistics and meta-analysis for cross-cultural research. Third, we highlight issues of measurement bias and lack of equivalence, but note that recent large-scale projects involving researchers across many countries from the beginning of a study have much potential for overcoming biases and improving standards of equivalence. Fourth, we address some implications of multilevel models. Cultural processes are multilevel by definition and recent statistical advances can be used to explore these issues further. We believe this is an area where much theoretical work needs to be done and more rigorous methods applied. Fifth, we argue that the definition of culture and the psychological organization of cross-cultural differences as well as the definition of cultural populations to which research findings are generalized requires more attention. Sixth, we address the scope for anchoring cross-cultural research in biological variables and by asking multiple questions simultaneously, as advocated by Tinbergen for classical ethology. Bringing these discussions together, we provide recommendations for enhancing the methodological strength of culture-comparative studies to advance cross-cultural psychology as a scientific discipline.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据