In this chapter, we review analytic strategies for examining various aspects of peer relations across cultures. Specifically, we review techniques of comparing measures across cultural contexts, with an emphasis on means and covariance structures (MACS) analysis. We then describe the comparisons of mean levels, variances, and covariances across cultures using this approach. Next, we describe techniques of examining intercultural perception and interaction using the social relations model, an underutilized approach in studying youths' peer relations. Finally, we briefly discuss some other analytic approaches and offer our view of the state of the art and future directions for analyzing cross-cultural peer relations data.

Comparing Cultures – Measurement

Given that there is little consensus regarding the measurement of group-level status (e.g., peer acceptance and rejection, perceived popularity and rejection, victimization), dyadic relationships of liking (e.g., friendships, romantic relationships) and disliking (e.g., enemies, mutual antipathies), and interpersonal behaviors (e.g., aggression, prosocial behaviors, interpersonal withdrawal) even within cultures predominantly studied by peer relations researchers (i.e., primarily White, English-speaking youths), it is little wonder that measuring these constructs across cultures poses significant challenges. Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to attempt to define these constructs or to offer specific suggestions for how these may be assessed in specific cultures, we wish to remind readers of the importance of this process. No amount of analytic sophistication can remedy problematic operationalization of a construct (though the methods we describe next can evaluate the success of cross-cultural measurement of a construct).

Abstract

We present a basic rationale for studying intraindividual change processes in development and discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of P-technique factor analyses for representing such change. An empirical example is presented to elucidate the application of the techniques and the interpretation of output. The data for our example come from observations of individual-level variables and social interactions of five Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). By referring to such a data base, we address many issues affecting observationally based data collection within intraindividual change designs. Although not commonly employed by developmentalists within the social and biological sciences, such designs can provide rich information for evaluating developmental theories.

Abstract

This chapter focuses on children's action-control beliefs and how various facets of the action-control system are shaped and affected by sociocultural contexts. From an action theory viewpoint, the action-control system comprises at least three interconnected belief types. Each belief dimension reflects a link between the three constituents of human action: the agent, various means, and the ends (outcome). Children's perceptions of the action relations among these constituents form three primary belief systems: agency beliefs, means–ends (or causality) beliefs, and control expectancy. Recent comparative investigations using this tripartite action-control framework indicate that some aspects of the relations between children's beliefs and their performance can vary considerably across different sociocultural settings. In the school domain, consistent cross-sample differences have emerged in children's beliefs about their personal access (agency beliefs) to school performance–relevant means (e.g., effort, ability, teachers) and the extent to which they believe they can personally control school performance outcomes (control expectancy). The magnitude of correspondence between these beliefs and actual school performance (school grades) has shown sizable cross-sample differences as well. In contrast to these variable outcomes, important sociocultural commonalities exist in the basic structure of children's belief systems and in their everyday conceptions of what determines school performance (means–ends beliefs). In interpreting such outcomes, I discuss ways in which three general influences (cognitive, motivational, and sociocontextual), as proximal aspects of children's sociocultural environments, can affect the development and expression of children's action-control systems.

Introduction

Action-control beliefs are a powerful set of psychological constructs (Skinner, 1995).