Suchergebnisse
Filter
4 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
World Affairs Online
Parenting measurement, normativeness, and associations with child outcomes: Comparing evidence from four non‐Western cultures
In: Developmental science
ISSN: 1467-7687
AbstractThis study compared parenting across four non‐Western cultures to test cross‐cultural commonality and specificity principles in three aspects: measurement properties, parenting normativeness, and their associations with child outcomes. Both mothers and fathers (N = 1509 dyads) with preschool‐aged children (M = 5.00 years; 48% girls) from urban areas of four countries (Malaysia, N = 372; China, N = 441; Turkey, N = 402; and Japan, N = 294) reported on four parenting constructs (authoritative, authoritarian, group harmony socialization, and intrusive control) and their sub‐dimensions using modified culturally relevant measures. Teachers reported on children's internalizing, externalizing, and prosocial behaviors. The commonality principle was supported by two sets of findings: (1) full measurement invariance was established for most parenting constructs and sub‐dimensions, except that intrusive control only reached partial scalar invariance, and (2) no variations were found in associations between parenting and any child outcomes across cultures or parent gender at the construct level for all four parenting constructs and at the sub‐dimensional level for authoritarian and intrusive control sub‐dimensions. The specificity principle was supported by the other two sets of findings: (1) cross‐cultural differences in parenting normativeness did not follow the pattern of economic development but yielded culture‐specific patterns, and (2) at the sub‐dimensional level, the authoritative parenting and group harmony socialization sub‐dimensions were differently associated with child outcomes across cultures and/or parent gender. The findings suggested that examining specific dimensions rather than broad parenting constructs is necessary to reflect cultural specificities and nuances. Our study provided a culturally‐invariant instrument and a three‐step guide for future parenting research to examine cross‐cultural commonalities/specificities.Research Highlights
This is the first study to use an instrument with measurement invariance across multiple non‐Western cultures to examine the commonality and specificity principles in parenting.
Measurement invariance was achieved across cultures for authoritative and authoritarian parenting, group harmony socialization, intrusive control, and their sub‐dimensions, supporting the commonality principle.
Cross‐cultural differences in parenting normativeness did not follow the pattern of economic development but yielded culture‐specific patterns, supporting the specificity principle.
Both commonalities and specificities were manifested in associations between parenting and child outcomes across cultures.
Cross-cultural dimensions of meaning in the evaluation of events in world history? Perceptions of historical calamities and progress in cross-cultural data from 30 societies
The universality versus culture specificity of quantitative evaluations (negative-positive) of 40 events in world history was addressed using World History Survey data collected from 5,800 university students in 30 countries/societies. Multidimensional scaling using generalized procrustean analysis indicated poor fit of data from the 30 countries to an overall mean configuration, indicating lack of universal agreement as to the associational meaning of events in world history. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified one Western and two non-Western country clusters for which adequate multidimensional fit was obtained after item deletions. A two-dimensional solution for the three country clusters was identified, where the primary dimension was historical calamities versus progress and a weak second dimension was modernity versus resistance to modernity. Factor analysis further reduced the item inventory to identify a single concept with structural equivalence across cultures, Historical Calamities, which included man-made and natural, intentional and unintentional, predominantly violent but also nonviolent calamities. Less robust factors were tentatively named as Historical Progress and Historical Resistance to Oppression. Historical Calamities and Historical Progress were at the individual level both significant and independent predictors of willingness to fight for one's country in a hierarchical linear model that also identified significant country-level variation in these relationships. Consensus around calamity but disagreement as to what constitutes historical progress is discussed in relation to the political culture of nations and lay perceptions of history as catastrophe. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published
BASE
Cross-cultural dimensions of meaning in the evaluation of events in world history? Perceptions of historical calamities and progress in cross-cultural data from thirty societies
The universality versus culture specificity of quantitative evaluations (negative-positive) of 40 events in world history was addressed using World History Survey data collected from 5,800 university students in 30 countries/societies. Multidimensional scaling using generalized procrustean analysis indicated poor fit of data from the 30 countries to an overall mean configuration, indicating lack of universal agreement as to the associational meaning of events in world history. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified one Western and two non-Western country clusters for which adequate multidimensional fit was obtained after item deletions. A two-dimensional solution for the three country clusters was identified, where the primary dimension was historical calamities versus progress and a weak second dimension was modernity versus resistance to modernity. Factor analysis further reduced the item inventory to identify a single concept with structural equivalence across cultures, Historical Calamities, which included man-made and natural, intentional and unintentional, predominantly violent but also nonviolent calamities. Less robust factors were tentatively named as Historical Progress and Historical Resistance to Oppression. Historical Calamities and Historical Progress were at the individual level both significant and independent predictors of willingness to fight for one's country in a hierarchical linear model that also identified significant country-level variation in these relationships. Consensus around calamity but disagreement as to what constitutes historical progress is discussed in relation to the political culture of nations and lay perceptions of history as ...
BASE