Suchergebnisse

True experiments cannot be conducted in cross cultural research because it is impossible to assign participants to different cultures randomly. Cross cultural studies are therefore regarded as quasi-experimental research, and threats that jeopardize the validity of causal inferences in cross cultural research are reviewed. Borrowing from evolutionary biology and epidemiology, the consilience approach is advocated for strengthening the validity of cross cultural causal inferences. This approach holds that causal inferences in cross cultural research are most convincing when supported by diverse evidence based on a sound theoretical basis, multiple sources of data, different research methods, and explicit refutation of alternative interpretations. Three broad strategies for strengthening cross cultural causal inferences are proposed under the consilience framework, including the systematic contrast of cultural groups, the inclusion of covariates to rule out alternative explanations, and the use of multiple research methods, such as cross cultural experimentation. Future developments of cross cultural research methods are discussed.

Cross-cultural developmental research faces the daunting task of studying the relationship of development and cultural context. The main argument of this article is that a variety of approaches is needed rather than one single perspective to make progress with this task. We illustrate how qualitative and quantitative research can be seen as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. We present four models, following Cole, that range from simple main effects to dynamic interaction models and argue that the debate about superiority of any one model is counterproductive; when applicable a more simple model is to be preferred. Thereafter a taxonomy of psychological domains is proposed (physiological, perceptual, cognitive, personality, and social aspects) that has a bearing on the choice of model. The final section describes some issues (and pseudoissues) of cross-cultural developmental science, such as the dichotomy between molar and molecular approaches, and the presumed need to maximize the understanding of cultural context in all research.

The aim of this study was to examine similarities and differences in the pattern and extent of support among family members in five cultural groups in the Netherlands (Dutch mainstreamers, Turkish, Moroccan-, Surinamese-, and Antillean-Dutch). Results revealed that the patterns of support were similar in all cultural groups: Provided support was larger than received support, parents provided and received more support than siblings, and emotional support was stronger than functional support. Using multigroup structural equation modeling, it was shown that the associations between family exchange, frequency of contact, and quality of relationship with parents and siblings were identical in all cultural groups. The cultural differences in mean scores were small for family exchange and quality of relationship, and moderate for frequency of contact. The cultural differences were interpreted in an ethnic-hierarchy model according to which family-support characteristics of immigrant groups that are higher in the hierarchy are more similar to those of the Dutch mainstream group.

In this book, top specialists address theoretical, methodological, and empirical multilevel models as they relate to the analysis of individual and cultural data. Divided into four parts, the book opens with the basic conceptual and theoretical issues in multilevel research, including the fallacies of such research. Part II describes the methodological aspects of multilevel research, including data-analytic and structural equation modeling techniques. Applications and models from various research areas including control, values, organizational behavior, social beliefs, well-being, personality, response styles, school performance, family, and acculturation, are explored in Part III. This section also deals with validity issues in aggregation models. The book concludes with an overview of the kinds of questions addressed in multilevel models and highlights the theoretical and methodological issues yet to be explored. This book is intended for researchers and advanced students in psychology, sociology, social work, marriage and family therapy, public health, anthropology, education, economics, political science, and cultural and ethnic studies who study the relationship between behavior and culture

In two studies, we examined the shared and unique meaning of acquiescent, extreme, midpoint, and socially desirable responding in association with the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ32), a forced-choice format personality measure designed to be less affected by these response styles, compared with personality inventories with Likert-type scales. Country-level response style indexes were derived from six waves of the International Social Survey Programme and from a meta-analysis of a social desirability scale. In the country-level correlational analysis, the four response styles formed a general response style (GRS) factor which was positively associated with (a) dominance (vs. submission) in interpersonal relationships, (b) competitive (vs. modest and democratic) feelings and emotions, and (c) data rational thinking. In a multilevel analysis, age showed a positive and education a negative effect on the individual-level GRS. Negative effects of country-level socioeconomic development and individualism and positive effects of competitiveness and data rational thinking on the individual-level response style were found. We conclude that country-level response styles are systematically associated with country personality measured by the OPQ32, suggesting that they can be viewed as having substantive meaning (i.e., culturally influenced response amplification vs. moderation). Implications are discussed.

We examined how perceived acculturation expectations from parents and school, and ethnic discrimination predicted early adolescents' heritage and mainstream acculturation orientations at home (private domain) and in school (public domain) one year later. We surveyed 263 early adolescents of immigrant background in Germany (Mage = 10.44 years, 60% female). Multigroup path analyses revealed that perceived acculturation expectations and ethnic discrimination were more strongly related to adolescents' private than public acculturation orientations. Parental heritage expectations were the strongest predictor of adolescents' acculturation orientations. Boys were more susceptible than girls to ethnic discrimination and acculturation expectations in school, which affected their private and public acculturation orientations. Results highlight the importance of integrating domain‐specific and gendered experiences when analyzing adolescents' acculturative development.

This study forms part of the South African Personality Inventory project that aims to develop: (a) an indigenous theoretical model of personality; and (b) a unique personality measure that is in line with South African legislation and that can be used fairly to assess personality across different South African language and cultural groups. In line with this mandate, the objectives in this study were twofold: first, to validate the Relationship Harmony and Soft-Heartedness Scales of the South African Personality Inventory and to determine whether these constructs are unique and distinct from the Big Five personality factors, and second, to determine whether Relationship Harmony and Soft-Heartedness are predictive of an external criterion, prosocial behaviour. A quantitative, cross-sectional research design with convenience sampling was used. Data were gathered from students (N = 431) at two tertiary institutions in South Africa, using preliminary Relationship Harmony and Soft-Heartedness Scales, the Basic Traits Inventory (Short form: Research Version), and the Prosocialness Scale. Results indicated that the Relationship Harmony and Soft-Heartedness Scales yielded five and six reliable factors, respectively, and presented good content, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity, adding substantial predictive value for prosocial behaviour over and above the Big Five Model ; National Research Foundation (NRF; SUR2009062300001496) and SANPAD (09_42)

ORIENTATION: A multicultural country like South Africa needs fair cross-cultural psychometric instruments. RESEARCH PURPOSE: This article reports on the process of identifying items for, and provides a quantitative evaluation of, the South African Personality Inventory (SAPI) items. MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY: The study intended to develop an indigenous and psychometrically sound personality instrument that adheres to the requirements of South African legislation and excludes cultural bias. RESEARCH DESIGN, APPROACH AND METHOD: The authors used a cross-sectional design. They measured the nine SAPI clusters identified in the qualitative stage of the SAPI project in 11 separate quantitative studies. Convenience sampling yielded 6735 participants. Statistical analysis focused on the construct validity and reliability of items. The authors eliminated items that showed poor performance, based on common psychometric criteria, and selected the best performing items to form part of the final version of the SAPI. MAIN FINDINGS: The authors developed 2573 items from the nine SAPI clusters. Of these, 2268 items were valid and reliable representations of the SAPI facets. PRACTICAL/MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS: The authors developed a large item pool. It measures personality in South Africa. Researchers can refine it for the SAPI. Furthermore, the project illustrates an approach that researchers can use in projects that aim to develop culturallyinformed psychological measures. CONTRIBUTION/VALUE-ADD: Personality assessment is important for recruiting, selecting and developing employees. This study contributes to the current knowledge about the early processes researchers follow when they develop a personality instrument that measures personality fairly in different cultural groups, as the SAPI does. ; The National Research Foundation (NRF; SUR2009062300001496) and SANPAD (09_42) ; http://www.sajip.co.za ; am2013

Orientation: A multicultural country like South Africa needs fair cross-cultural psychometric instruments. Research purpose: This article reports on the process of identifying items for, and provides a quantitative evaluation of, the South African Personality Inventory (SAPI) items. Motivation for the study: The study intended to develop an indigenous and psychometrically sound personality instrument that adheres to the requirements of South African legislation and excludes cultural bias. Research design, approach and method: The authors used a cross-sectional design. They measured the nine SAPI clusters identified in the qualitative stage of the SAPI project in 11 separate quantitative studies. Convenience sampling yielded 6735 participants. Statistical analysis focused on the construct validity and reliability of items. The authors eliminated items that showed poor performance, based on common psychometric criteria, and selected the best performing items to form part of the final version of the SAPI. Main findings: The authors developed 2573 items from the nine SAPI clusters. Of these, 2268 items were valid and reliable representations of the SAPI facets. Practical/managerial implications: The authors developed a large item pool. It measures personality in South Africa. Researchers can refine it for the SAPI. Furthermore, the project illustrates an approach that researchers can use in projects that aim to develop culturallyinformed psychological measures. Contribution/value-add: Personality assessment is important for recruiting, selecting and developing employees. This study contributes to the current knowledge about the early processes researchers follow when they develop a personality instrument that measures personality fairly in different cultural groups, as the SAPI does ; http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip ; http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/view/1122/1482 ; http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v39i1.1122