6.8 The use of psychological tests in varying cultures.

Other psychological tests have however been transferred validly for use in cross-cultural research. That seems appropriate if the test protocol meets certain criteria as we discussed in chapter 2. Does the content of the test or survey have similar meanings where tested? For example when measuring attitudes toward undocumented immigrants cross-culturally does the psychological domain have the same meaning in the samples tested? Does illegal immigration play approximately the same or variable roles in the countries tested? Appropriate comparative conclusions can only be drawn if the domain of illegal immigration is equivalent. Psychological testing has developed several approaches including psychometric analysis to ensure structural equivalence of test items. However, the primary motivation for the development of psychological testing is practical use for educational aptitude or job placement. However, for that use it is imperative that the researchers can demonstrate the valid transferability of the tests from the original to other cultures.

As also discussed in chapter 2 there is broadly a consensus that the testing procedure developed in one country can be utilized in other cultures. Equivalence of sampling of respondents and proper translation procedures are necessary considerations. For example proper cross-cultural testing would require the translation into the new language, and then a retranslation into the original language, and then again into the new language in order to ascertain the validity of the translation. Larsen and his co-workers followed these procedures and examined attitudes in a variety of societies utilizing unidimensional scaling techniques and based on comparative meanings and translation and survey procedures (Ommundsen & Larsen, 1997; Ommundsen & Larsen, 1999; Ommundsen, Hak, Morch, Larsen, & Van der Veer, 2002; Ommundsen, Van der Veer, Van Le, Krumov, & Larsen, 2007; Van der Veer, Ommundsen, Larsen, Van Le, Krumov, Pernice, & Pastor Romans, 2004).

6.9 How intelligence is viewed in other cultures.

Cross-cultural research support an expanded view of intelligence related to specific cultural values. Cross-cultural studies have traditionally not taken these conceptual differences seriously which has confounded not only the results but also interpretations of the existence of deficit functioning in other cultural groups. Cross-cultural confusion in the construct of intelligence becomes likely when we realize that many languages do not have words that correspond directly with the English word intelligence. For example the Chinese (consistent with their collectivistic culture) associate intelligence with words that reflect their social reality including social responsibility and imitation (Keats, 1982). It seems clear that if there is no common agreement on the construct measured then Western tests applied to other cultures would yield a somewhat artificial and indeed biased picture of the meaning of intelligence in that society. Since the intelligence construct is closely related to education and the cognitive styles of the culture the tests may not provide very accurate portrayals of respondents in traditional cultural groups or in societies that are collectivistic. African cultures provide other examples of different perspectives on intelligence. For example, in one cultural group intelligence was seen as a combination of practical know-how and social skills in getting along with others. Local conceptualizations of intelligence are reviewed in Segall et al (1999).

Cultures to some extent value different cognitive traits and have alternative views on how these traits relate to success in their society. In collectivistic cultures taking tests in an effort to score high can be thought of as a form of self-enhancement where the participant seeks to differentiate him/herself from peers. However, in these societies self enhancement is perceived as arrogant since modesty and the welfare of the group are valued above individual display. Since comparisons are particularly difficult when the samples don’t share the same conceptual definitions there is a need to interpret intelligence research from the indigenous cognitive perspective. From that point of view there is agreement on some universal aspects of cognitive functioning, but also an attempt to understand differences in cognition from the perspective of the indigenous cultural context (Berry, Irvine, & Hunt, 1988).

The major argument in favor of indigenous reinterpretations is that cross-cultural research has traditionally viewed differences between cultural groups as fixed cognitive deficits in the low scoring cultural group produced by biology and genetics. It is more consistent with what we actually know about intelligence to examine individual deficits as related to test scores. We know that the sociocultural environment unjustly deprive some people of opportunities to learn and apply knowledge because of poverty and poor health. Some cultural and ethnic groups are socially deprived and suffer from discrimination and marginalization in society impacting cognitive functioning. Focusing on these malleable differences is more realistic in terms of the meaning of intelligence, and if the socioeconomic culture can be changed that can result in improvement of cognitive life.

In the final analysis we should advocate for a definition of intelligence that is more broadly based on the cultural group experiences. From this perspective intelligence are defined by the skills and behaviors that support the individual in reaching culturally valued goals. In some cultures individual goals could include the pursuit of a career in a modern industrial society requiring high levels of cognitive functioning including logic, rational reasoning, mathematical skills and associated social skills. However, in other cultures it is more important to develop and ensure positive interpersonal relationships. The intelligent person in that culture would incorporate the social skills that permit him to be a successful member of the collective.