Levels of Analysis in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Smith, Peter B.

doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1018

Cited by 32 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study can be considered as an integrated approach to implementing the methodology addressed in van de Vijver and Leung (1997) and . It also has the theoretical advantage (Chao, 2000) of addressing the issues of level and the nonindependence of people within cultures (D. Chan, 1998;Klein et al, 1994;Smith, 2002). Specifically, in the first step, MASEM is proposed for use in examining the structural equivalence of a model across cultures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, two levels-individual and culture-are obvious in these data sets. When analyzing these data sets, the issues of level and the nonindependence of people within cultures need to be addressed properly (D. Chan, 1998;Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994;Smith, 2002). The appropriate, and probably best, method is to analyze individual-and culture-level data simultaneously via multilevel models (e.g., Klein, Tosi, & Cannella, 1999;Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Multilevel Models in Cross-Cultural Research

Cheung

Leung

2006

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess how culture influences the behavior of people, multilevel models are an immediate choice for modeling the relationship at the levels of the individual and culture. The authors propose structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the universality of psychological processes at the individual and culture levels. Specifically, the structural equivalence of the measurement (where the instrument is measuring the same construct across countries) is first tested with meta-analytic SEM. If the measurement is structurally equivalent, cross-level equivalence (where the instrument is measuring similar constructs at different levels) will then be tested with multilevel SEM. A large data set on social axioms with 7,590 university students from 40 cultural groups was used to illustrate the procedures. The results showed that the structural equivalence of the social axioms was well supported at the individual level across 40 cultural groups, whereas the crosslevel equivalence was partially supported. The superiority of the SEM approach and the theoretical meaning of its solution are discussed.Culture influences how people think, behave, and communicate. Hofstede (1980) defined culture as "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another" (p. 25). This definition suggests that culture is shared among individuals. It has long been recognized that people within the same culture share similar languages, beliefs, values, and other psychological attributes when compared with people in other cultures. From a statistical point of view, people and culture are considered on two distinct levels, but people are nested within culture.One of the key research questions in cross-cultural research is whether psychological processes are universal across cultures. To answer this question, the dominant approaches are the individual-level analysis and the culture-level analysis (Leung, 1989). For example, based on more than 60,000 individuals from 40 nations or regions, Hofstede (1980) factor analyzed societal means (the average scores of people in each society) and identified four Downloaded from Cheung et al. / MULTILEVEL MODELS 523 cultural dimensions. These cultural dimensions, especially individualism-collectivism, have been frequently used to explain cross-cultural similarities and differences.Although Hofstede's approach was based on the culture-level analysis, Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) proposed a value-based model (the Schwartz value survey) presented at the individual level. Schwartz and Bilsky identified 56 values that could be grouped into 10 types. Further research has showed that these value types can be applied to explain the psychology of people from a diverse range of cultures (Schwartz, 1992).As international collaborations have increased, it has become popular to conduct research using large, cross-cultural data sets (e.g.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Multilevel Models in Cross-Cultural Research

Cheung

Leung

2006

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In broader theoretical terms, our findings demonstrate the significance of regional variations in love styles, and the mediating role of particular values. While we are aware of the dangers of interpreting individual values as indicative of culture‐level patterns (Smith, 2002), we believe the overlap between conservation values and other major culture‐level indices makes conservation a valuable variable for inclusion when one is trying to understand cultural and regional variations in relationship patterns. Notably, while emotional love styles, such as eros, may be universal and relatively resistant to change (Neto et al., 2000), others may more open to local ecological demands and temporal changes, as they are correlated with relevant culture‐level values and beliefs or axioms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Values and love styles in Turkey and Great Britain: An intercultural and intracultural comparison

Sanri

2012

Int J Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little previous research has examined the relationship between values and love styles, and none has done so across cultures or intracultural regions. This research was the first attempt to explore the correlation between individual-level values and love styles, and examined both within- and between-cultural variations in love styles. In this study 224 participants from Turkey and Britain, from urban or rural locations, completed the Portrait Values Questionnaire and the Love Attitudes Scale measure of love styles. Pancultural analyses demonstrated significant correlations between certain value dimensions and love styles. In particular, agape (selfless love) was positively correlated with self-transcendence, ludus (game-playing love) was positively correlated with self-enhancement, and pragma (realistic love) was positively correlated with conservation. The inclusion of location and nationality and their interactions with values in the multiple regression analyses significantly increased the variance explained by values for five of the six love styles. Multivariate analyses indicated that ludus, storge, mania, and pragma were all significantly higher among Turkish respondents; pragma, mania, and agape all higher amongst rural respondents. Eros was highest among rural British respondents; storge, pragma, and agape highest among rural Turks. When these culture effects were explored, conservation significantly mediated the relationship between the groups of more conservative rural Turks (versus other participants) and both pragmatic and storgic love styles. Findings are discussed in the light of disparities in values and relationship styles within cultures, and the need to include both intracultural and intercultural variations in cross cultural research.

show abstract

“…Culture can be conceptualized as occurring at some, or all, of a number of different levels: the cross-cultural, intra-and interpersonal (PriceWilliams et al, 2002) and supra-individual (Smith et al, 2002). Alternatively, culture can be conceptualized as some type of meaning, such as the meaning of emic concepts or the differences between the meanings of concepts (Triandis et al, 2002).…”

Section: Culturementioning

confidence: 99%

Re(con)figuring Psychoanalysis

Gülerce¹

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Levels of Analysis in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Cited by 32 publications

References 17 publications

Evaluating Multilevel Models in Cross-Cultural Research

Evaluating Multilevel Models in Cross-Cultural Research

Values and love styles in Turkey and Great Britain: An intercultural and intracultural comparison

Re(con)figuring Psychoanalysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About