Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ph5wq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T16:18:28.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Frameworks for explaining cross-cultural variance: a meta-analytic examination of their usefulness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Dianne A. van Hemert
Affiliation:
TNO Human Factors, Soesterberg, the Netherlands
Fons J. R. van de Vijver
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Athanasios Chasiotis
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Seger M. Breugelmans
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Poortinga and colleagues (Poortinga and van de Vijver, 1987; Poortinga et al., 1987) introduced a metaphor for the process of explaining cross-cultural variance in psychology that has been one of the guiding principles in my work as a cross-cultural researcher. ‘Peeling the onion called culture’ refers to explaining proportions of cross-cultural variance accounted for by separate cultural variables analogous to removing the layers of an imaginary onion. The object of cross-cultural studies is to explain all variance until nothing is left to be explained. This chapter describes the empirical support that can be found for the various frameworks of cross-cultural differences, and evaluates the extent to which cross-cultural differences are systematic. Two fundamental questions as outlined in Chapter 1 (editors) are particularly relevant in the present chapter: What is the relationship between individual and culture, and what are methodological challenges to the field of cross-cultural psychology?

Four approaches are distinguished that could be used to explain cross-cultural variance in psychological functioning: (1) theoretical approaches such as the ecocultural framework (Berry, 1976; Georgas and Berry, 1995) and the cross-cultural domain framework (Poortinga, Kop and van de Vijver, 1990; van de Vijver and Poortinga, 1990); (2) studies that cluster many country-level indicators in order to arrive at a few broad dimensions (e.g., Georgas, van de Vijver and Berry, 2004; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985; Rummel, 1972); (3) frameworks that evolved from cross-cultural studies involving many countries (e.g., Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Schwartz, 1992, 1994); and (4) explanations of cultural differences in terms of artefacts or bias (van de Vijver and Leung, 1997, 2000).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allport, G. W., and Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, J. W. (1976). Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York: Sage/Halsted.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. S., and Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bond, M. H. (2004). Culture and aggression: From context to coercion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 62–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, M. H. (in press). A cultural-psychological model for explaining differences in behavior: Positioning the belief construct. In Sorrentino, R., Cohen, D., Olsen, J. and Zanna, M. P. (eds.), Culture and social behavior: The 10th Ontario symposium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cattell, R. B. (1949). The dimensions of culture patterns by factorization of national characters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 443–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cattell, R. B., Breul, H., and Hartman, H. P. (1952). An attempt at a more refined definition of the cultural dimensions of syntality in modern nations. Sociological Review, 17, 404–21.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., Graham, R. K., and Woliver, R. E. (1979). A reassessment of the factorial cultural dimensions of modern nations. Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 241–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (rev. edn). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diener, E., Diener, M., and Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faucheux, C. (1976). Cross-cultural research in experimental social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 269–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fijneman, Y. A., Willemsen, M. E., and Poortinga, Y. H. (1996). Individualism–collectivism: An empirical study of a conceptual issue. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgas, J., and Berry, J. W. (1995). An ecocultural taxonomy for cross-cultural psychology. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 121–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgas, J., Vijver, F. J. R., and Berry, J. W. (2004). The ecocultural framework, ecosocial indices, and psychological variables in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halman, L., and Moor, R. (1993). Religion, churches and moral values. In Ester, P., Halman, L. and Moor, R. (eds.), The individualizing society: Value change in Europe and North America (pp. 37–65). Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., and Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hui, N. H. H., and Hemert, D. A. (2006). Self-esteem and culture. Paper presented at the APA Convention 2005, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Humana, C. (1986). World human rights guide. London: The Economist Publications.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., and Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1993). World values survey 1990–1991: WVS Program. J.D. Systems, S.L. ASEP S.A.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 countries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R., and Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. (1997). What can you build with thousands of bricks? Musings on the cumulation of knowledge in program evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 76, 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama's theory of independent and interdependent self-construal. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures. In Marsella, A. J. (series ed.), McCrae, R. R. and Allik, J. (eds.), The five-factor framework of personality across cultures, pp. 105–25. New York: Kluwer.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
Poortinga, Y. H., Kop, P. F. M., and Vijver, F. J. R. (1990). Differences between psychological domains in the range of cross-cultural variation. In Drenth, P. J. D., Sergeant, J. A. and Takens, R. J. (eds.), European perspectives in psychology (vol. III, pp. 355–76). New York: Wiley.
Poortinga, Y. H., and Vijver, F. J. R. (1987). Explaining cross-cultural differences: Bias analysis and beyond. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 259–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H., Vijver, F. J. R., Joe, R. C., and Koppel, J. M. H. (1987). Peeling the onion called culture: A synopsis. In Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 22–34). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H., Vijver, F. J. R., and Hemert, D. A. (2002). Cross-cultural equivalence of the Big Five: A tentative interpretation of the evidence. In McCrae, R. R. and Allik, J. (eds.), The five-factor framework across cultures (pp. 271–92). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Ronen, S., and Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10, 435–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analysis procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rummel, R. H. (1972). The dimensions of nations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., and Diener, E. (2005). Individualism: A valid and important dimension of cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. XXV, pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kağitçibaşi, Ç., Choi, S. C. and Yoon, G. (eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, S. H., and Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., and Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (2006). Understanding social psychology across cultures: Living and working in a changing world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Tarakeshwar, N., Stanton, J., and Pargament, K. I. (2003). Religion: An overlooked dimension in cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 377–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In Berman, J. (ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1989 (pp. 41–133). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Greeley, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Poortinga, Y. H. (1990). A taxonomy of cultural differences. In Vijver, F. J. R. and Hutschemaekers, G. J. M. (eds.), The investigation of culture: Current Issues in cultural psychology (pp. 91–114). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Vliert, E. (2006). Autocratic leadership around the globe: Do climate and wealth drive leadership culture?Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 42–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vliert, E., Huang, X., and Levine, R. V. (2004). National wealth and thermal climate as predictors of motives for volunteer work. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemert, D. A. (2003). Patterns of cross-cultural differences in psychology: A meta-analytic approach. Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Hemert, D. A. (in press). Cross-cultural meta-analysis. In Matsumoto, D. and Vijver, F. J. R. (eds.), Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hemert, D. A., Poortinga, Y. H., and Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Emotion and culture: a meta-analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 913–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemert, D. A., Vijver, F. J. R., and Poortinga, Y. H. (2002). The Beck Depression Inventory as a measure of subjective well-being: A cross-national study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemert, D. A., Vijver, F. J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., and Georgas, J. (2002). Structural and functional equivalence of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire within and between countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1229–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willemsen, M. E., and Vijver, F. J. R. (1997). Developmental expectations of Dutch, Turkish-Dutch, and Zambian mothers: Towards an explanation of cross-cultural differences. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 837–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,World Bank (1999). World development report 1998/1999: Knowledge for development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, D. M. (1991). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wulff, D. M. (1997). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×