Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

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.

One major threat to revealing cultural influences on psychological states or processes is the presence of bias (i.e., systematic measurement error). When quantitative measures are not targeting the same construct or they differ in metric across cultures, the validity of inferences about cultural variability (and universality) is in doubt. The objectives of this article are to review what can be done about it and what is being done about it. To date, a multitude of useful techniques and methods to reduce or assess bias in cross-cultural research have been developed. We explore the limits of invariance/equivalence testing and suggest more flexible means of dealing with bias. First, we review currently available established and novel methods that reveal bias in cross-cultural research. Second, we analyze current practices in a systematic content analysis. The content analysis of more than 500 culture-comparative quantitative studies (published from 2008 to 2015 in three outlets in cross-cultural, social, and developmental psychology) aims to gauge current practices and approaches in the assessment of measurement equivalence/invariance. Surprisingly, the analysis revealed a rather low penetration of invariance testing in cross-cultural research. Although a multitude of classical and novel approaches for invariance testing is available, these are employed infrequent rather than habitual. We discuss reasons for this hesitation, and we derive suggestions for creatively assessing and handling biases across different research paradigms and designs.

Replication is the scientific gold standard that enables the confirmation of research findings. Concerns related to publication bias, flexibility in data analysis, and high-profile cases of academic misconduct have led to recent calls for more replication and systematic accumulation of scientific knowledge in psychological science. This renewed emphasis on replication may pose specific challenges to cross-cultural research due to inherent practical difficulties in emulating an original study in other cultural groups. The purpose of the present article is to discuss how the core concepts of this replication debate apply to cross-cultural psychology. Distinct to replications in cross-cultural research are examinations of bias and equivalence in manipulations and procedures, and that targeted research populations may differ in meaningful ways. We identify issues in current psychological research (analytic flexibility, low power) and possible solutions (preregistration, power analysis), and discuss ways to implement best practices in cross-cultural replication attempts.

We argue that comparing adult behavior and cognition across cultures is insufficient to capture the multifaceted complexity of cultural variation. We champion a multidisciplinary perspective that draws on biological and psychological theory and methods. We provide examples for ways in which cross-cultural, developmental, and comparative studies might be combined to unravel the interplay between universal species-typical behaviors and behavioral variation across groups and, at the same time, to explain uniquely human cultural diversity by identifying the unique and universal patterns of human behavior and cognition in early childhood that create, structure, and maintain variation across groups. Such a perspective adds depth to explanations of cultural variation and universality and firmly roots accounts of human culture in a broader, biological framework. We believe that, therefore, the field of cross-cultural psychology may benefit from combining efforts with comparative and developmental psychologists.

In this article, we attempt to integrate recent advances in our understanding of the relations between culture and genes into an emerging field—cultural genomics—and discuss its promises and theoretical and methodological challenges. We first provide a brief review of previous conceptualizations about the relations between culture and genes and then argue that recent advances in molecular evolution research has allowed us to reframe the discussion away from parallel genetic and cultural evolution to focus on the interactions between the two. After outlining the key issues involved in cultural genomics (unit of analysis, timescale, mechanisms, and direction of influence), we provide examples of research for the different levels of interactions between culture and genes. We then discuss ideological, theoretical, and methodological challenges in cultural genomics and propose tentative solutions.

The Global Trust Inventory (GTI), conceptually assessing trust in others ranging from close interpersonal relationships to relationships with government and financial institutions as a whole, was administered to representative online samples in 11 democratic states (N = 11,917 from Europe, the Americas, and New Zealand). A seven-factor solution had configural, metric, and reasonable scalar invariance in multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. Using latent profile analysis, individual-level measures of trust were derived that complement existing measures of social capital in their impact and implications. Western societies had proportionately more people with high propensity to trust, Catholic/European intermediate, and Latin American societies the least. A High Trust Profile had virtues associated with social capital: greater participation in political discussion, greater elaboration of political thinking, more community engagement, less prejudice, and greater participation in elections. A Low Trust Profile exhibited opposite tendencies. Demographically, high trust was associated with higher self-reported social status, home ownership, older age, and political conservatism. A more complex set of relationships differentiated two intermediate profiles, dubbed Moderate and Low Institutional Trust. Conceptually, the GTI operationalizes a holistic view of trust as a “synthetic force” that holds various aspects of society together, ranging from interpersonal to institutionalized relationships.

Third Culture Kids (TCKs) and their adult counterparts (ATCKs) refer to individuals who spent part of their developmental years abroad and are an important demographic to study in this rapidly globalizing world. To date, the bulk of the research on (A)TCKs has been descriptive and little is known about their developmental trajectories in adulthood. The major objective of this study was to examine the personality traits, dimensions of well-being, and cognitive-affective styles of ATCKs across the adult life span using well-validated psychological measures. A subsidiary goal was to develop a new multidimensional international experiences scale to assess levels of multicultural engagement in ATCKs. The participants in this study (N = 700+; age = 18-80+) were recruited from the Alumni Office of an international school in Japan. Somewhat contrary to how they are often depicted in the news media and in qualitative studies, the ATCKs showed normative changes in personality and well-being in the direction of greater maturity and adjustment during adulthood, with those reporting higher levels of multicultural engagement generally exhibiting a more resilient personality profile, higher levels of well-being, and more adaptive cognitive and affective styles.

People often make inferences about the values of other people in their families, cities, and countries, but there are reasons to expect systematic biases in these inferences. Across four studies (N = 1,763), we examined people’s perceptions of the values of their families, fellow citizens of the cities in which they live, and compatriots across three nations (Brazil, Germany, the United Kingdom). Our results show that people systematically misperceive comparison groups’ values. People underestimate the importance that their compatriots ascribe to more important values and overestimate the importance of less important values. This occurs in comparison with their own values, the actual values of the people living in the same city and the actual values of their compatriots. The effect sizes were medium to large. Furthermore, the results occurred independently of participants’ culture, time spent in the culture, and the underlying value model used. These results consistently show that people’s speculations about values in their community and society are biased in a self- and family favoring direction. In addition, we found that the structure of values (e.g., as proposed by Schwartz) holds for perceived family, fellow citizens of the cities in which they live, and compatriots’ values. Overall, our findings suggest that the values of other people are more selfless than is often believed.