2.4 Studies of cultural level ecological averages.

In chapter 1 we discussed Hofstede's work-related values, Schwartz’s value orientations, as well as the contributions of Leung and Bond on social axioms. These studies are examples of ecological level research since the data collected is averaged for each culture allowing comparisons for such values as individualism and collectivism. Typically studies in cross-cultural psychology are based on the responses of individuals. Comparisons of samples based on individual responses may yield significant differences, but how do we know what is responsible for these results? For example, differences in aggression levels between cultures may or may not be the consequence of cultural variables as aggression can also be attributed to social frustration.

Ecological level average statistics reveal the underlying psychological dimensions responsible for cultural related behavior and offer a better reference point to understand the results of individual based studies. The work-related values of Hofstede provided the researcher with a theoretical framework to develop relevant contextual and personality traits to be examined in comparative studies, and to help explain the results. Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, and Lucca (1988) utilized other cultural based averages when they correlated the incidence of heart attacks with the value of individualism. Matsumoto and Flectcher (1996) correlated Hofstede’s dimensions to the occurrence rates of various diseases, and the work-related values provided a theoretical explanation for varying incidence of illness occurrence. Other psychological constructs have also been investigated using cultural averages including personality traits (McCrae, Terracciano, Khoury, Nansubuga, Knezevic, & Djuric Jocic, 2005). In addition to cultural dimensions other ecological level factors may also influence cultural specific variables for example the place of culture in relation to geopolitical issues and the political and economic system. Climatic differences may also contribute to differences linked to culture. According to Andersen (1999) climatic conditions determine the degree of intimacy between the members of a culture. He suggests that cultures located in warmer countries are “high-contact”, while those located in countries with cooler climate are “low-contact”. Cross-cultural psychology could benefit from more integrated studies seeking to relate cultural average data to theories and specific aspects of culture.

2.5 What is measured in cross-cultural research?

Research in cross-cultural psychology typically seeks to ascertain differences between populations on psychological assessments. How do scores of different cultural groups compare on survey responses to the measures of the variables of interest? However, the psychological world is just one aspect of the influences of culture. Any survey will contain only a small sampling of all the relevant information of interest and may not include other salient domains due to inadequate knowledge by the investigator. A broader concern is to examine differences in the natural world or the ecological context that influence culture. This refers to the more or less permanent features of a culture that create the context for individual behavior and can include as noted climate and other aspects of the natural world as well as the socio-economic system. The norms developed in society are thought the outcome of the ecological context.

In addition there are other factors that are cultural in nature including child rearing practices of society and customary behavior. The attitudes of the individual are the result of habitual and normative acceptable cognition and behavior. Is culture or climate responsible for observed differences in innovation and efficiency? Often these ecological issues are not evaluated, but nevertheless may play a role. Research confined to psychological assessment only examines a narrow band of the entire context that influences behavior in cross-cultural psychology. Some think that the addition of qualitative approaches that examines behavior in the natural world helps expand the relevant information and more validly represent the overall context.

Cross-cultural research explains differences in psychological assessments of attributes by explaining the variability in terms of context variables like religious values that dominate the society. For example, attitudes of authoritarianism expressed in sentiments toward established institutions are explained by virtue of a culture’s ubiquitous religious values. Individual psychological assessments are measured by individual responses to surveys or scales, but the explanation is at the context level. Some attempts have been made to differentiate the effects of context variables from psychological assessments (Poortinga & Van de Vijver, 1987). There are many possibilities for error when one level of assessment is used to explain the outcomes at another level. Individual responses may not always be correctly explained by population level context variables. For example relative poverty might be logically thought to explain the role of education in society and individual achievement. Nevertheless in Cuba, a relative poor country, there are very high levels of educational achievement as well as high levels of health care.

One study (Iwata & Higuchi, 2000) reported that Japanese expressed higher rates of trait anxiety. The explanation offered by the researchers was that this difference occurred because of the collectivistic society in Japan where individual well-being is secondary to the well-being of the group. However, none of these factors were actually measured in the study including controlling for level of collectivism. To make valid cross-cultural comparisons requires the measurement of some aspects of the culture examined. Relevant studies need to examine more specific aspects of culture thought responsible for behavioral differences. Culture is just an overall label, and in comparative work we need to study specific aspects of the culture thought relevant to the behavior in question.

Attempts have been made to examine at the individual level variables like individualism-collectivism thought to profoundly affect behavior. Triandis (1994, 1995) was influenced by Hofstede’s early work on work-related values that revealed the presence of cultures dominated by values of individualism or collectivism (Hofstede, 1980). These variables were later measured at the individual level through the construction of scales. Hui (1988) developed a scale that measured the respondent’s relative individualism-collectivism tendencies as related to significant social relationships including family, friends and co-workers. Matsumoto, Weissman, Preston, Brown and Kupperbusch (1997) measured tendencies influenced by the context in interpersonal situations. The context was defined as a cultural syndrome including beliefs, attitudes and behaviors as supported by fundamental values (Triandis, 1996). Others (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand, 1995) developed a revised concept of individualism-collectivism identifying both vertical and horizontal components. In horizontal individualism members are equal and autonomous. In vertical individualist societies (like the United States) individuals are considered autonomous but unequal. In horizontal collectivism members are perceived as participants of ingroups and equal. In vertical collectivism individuals are described in terms of status and hierarchical relations.