research methodologies in cultural psychology
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Research Methodologies in Cultural Psychology
Benjamin Cheung
Langara College
October 8, 2009
Problems?What difficulties do you think cultural
psychologists encounter in studying cultural differences?
Some important practises (and their problems):
Can’t assign “culture” condition
Questionnaire studies
Behavioural studies
Cultural product studiesNo such thing as THE perfect method
Implicit vs. Explicit Questionnaires
Two types of questionnaire measures:
Explicit = characteristic of most scales and questionnaires
Questions that “explicitly” ask for opinions and attitudes
Implicit = characteristic of most studies other than scales and questionnaires
Indirectly probes concepts/attitudes of interest
Explicit Measures: The Good Stuff
Very simple, very convenient, not very time consuming
Researchers can amass explicit scales and measure many concepts at once (“shotgun” approach)
Can run many participants at the same time
Easy to use, but can be very problematic
Explicit Measures: The Bad Stuff
What potential problems do you see with scales that use questions like the above?
Sample questions from explicit measures:
I enjoy participating in the activities of the mainstream culture
I have respect for the authority figures with whom I interact
I feel that I have quite a few good qualities
Explicit Measures: More Bad Stuff
Common problems with explicit measures:
People say more than they know, and know more than they say
Cognitive dissonance (e.g. justification of behaviour)
Reference group effect I’ll focus on this for this lecture
Reference group effectWe respond to subjective questions by
comparing ourselves to similar othersEnd up making incomparable comparisons
It’s All Relative… (Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002)
Cultural experts: “Japanese are more interdependent, and less independent, than Americans”
Explicit measures don’t match with “expert opinion”
Japanese < Canadians on Independences (expected)
Japanese < Canadians on Interdependence (not expected)
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
Independence
Japan Canada
Interdependence
It’s All Relative… (Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002)
People now comparing selves with their cultural counterpart, and reflects expert opinions
Further studies show that Asian Canadians show an even wider difference
What if participants both rate themselves, and rate selves compared to other culture?
For example: “Compared to most Japanese I know, I think I have respect for the authority figures with whom I interact.”
2
3
3
4
4
Independence
Japan Canada
Interdependence
2.5
3.5
Implicit Measures: Hope or Hype?
Indirectly probe concept of interestExample:
So what do you think?Pros:
Escape from response biases Theoretically gets to “true values and
beliefs,” uncontaminated by conscious control
Harder to guess hypothesisCons:
…Are you serious…? That’s what it tests? Questionable “face validity,” sometimes
questionable “construct validity” Often not as easy to analyse than explicit
measures
All Your Base Are Belong To UsTranslation is very tricky, but necessary for
cross-cultural studies
Does a similar concept exist in target culture? Can you trust one translator? How easy is it to make it sound idiomatic and “regular?”
Common Solutions for Translation Problems
Two (or more) bilingual translators Translators simultaneously work on
questionnaire Discuss on points of
disagreement/discrepancyBack Translation
One bilingual translator works on questionnare
Second bilingual translator re-translates into original language
Lather, rinse and repeat as needed
I’m Watching You…Behavioural studies are more
objective
Avoids reference effects, response biases, etc.
Usually seen as more compelling
Often the culmination of several questionnaire studies
Ultimately, we are interested in people’s behaviours
Peace of MindAnderson & Linden (2006) found that Asians
also control physiological response to anger
Asian Canadians’ BP had faster recovery rate
Emotions may be experienced/handled differently
Inhibition of anger hinders recovery of blood pressure (BP) for Euro-Canadians
ChallengesNeed to determine specific
behaviours to measureNeed creative ways to measure
behavioursTo what extent do we specify or
broaden behavioural criterion? E.g. How does your face show “Oops, my
bad” without words? E.g. Swedish researchers and Indian family
dinner
Cultural ProductsEchoes Shweder’s conception of
cultural psychology – who remembers?
Studying mutual influence of person + context/environment
Cultural products = TV commercials, newspaper articles, magazine ads, etc.
Serve as vehicle created by people to express cultural values, and vehicle through which culture is taught to people
The Media and You (Morling & Lamoreaux, 2008)
Cultural differences in Individualism and Collectivism can be detected in cultural products
Meta-analysis on 40 studies
The worst of cultureThe Good:
Can tap “pure” or ideal representation of cultural value
Serves the purpose of examining both people culture influence, and culture people influence
The Bad: Lack of generalisability to individual-level
cultural values May falsely represent homogeneity within
culture
What’s what?When to use what?
Studies tend to be multi-partite Start with questionnaire studies to show
support for concept Move on to behavioural or cultural-product
studies Progression allows combination of multiple
methodologiesMultiple methodologies diminishes
effects of weaknesses from each individual method – No perfect method
Comparative BreakdownExplicit
QuestionsImplicit
QuestionsBehavioural
StudiesCultural Products Studies
Pros:
Cons:
• Cheap• Easy to run• Can use multiple scales and on multiple participants
• More immune to response biases• Harder to guess hypothesis• Subject to less conscious control
• Objective measurement of values and beliefs• Can show individual-differences
• “Pure” cultural idea/values• Can see mutual people + context influence at the same time
• Very subjective• Susceptible to response biases• Easier to guess hypothesis
• Some have questionable “construct validity”
• More expensive• Hard to define specificity of target behaviour
• Lacks insight into individual differences• Shows false cultural homogeneity
