Cross-Cultural Differences in a Global “Survey of World Views”:
University of Oregon1, University of Nevada, Reno2, Singapore Management University3, Addis Ababa University4, Koç University5, National University of Malaysia6, National Chung Cheng University7, Soochow University (Suzhou)8, Jahangirnagar University9, Mount Meru University10, University of Crete11, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv12, Kathmandu University13, University of Gdańsk14, Mahidol University15, University of Leicester16, De La Salle University17, National University of Rosario18, Central Philippine University19, Bielefeld University20, Otaru University of Commerce21, Rovira i Virgili University22, University of Málaga23, University of Lima24, University of Delhi25, National University of San Marcos26, Federal University of Uberlandia27, University of Nairobi28, Chulalongkorn University29, University of Lethbridge30, Autonomous University of Sinaloa31, I-Shou University32, St. Xavier's College-Autonomous, Mumbai33, Sabancı University34, University of Manitoba35, Suzhou University of Science and Technology36, Moscow State University37, Australian National University38, Belmont University39, Yonsei University40, Federal University of Bahia41, University of San Andrés42, American University in Cairo43, University of Asia and the Pacific44, Institute of Technology, Carlow45, VU University Amsterdam46, National Autonomous University of Mexico47, University of New Mexico48, University of Buenos Aires49
TL;DR: The authors found that the largest differences were not in those contents most frequently emphasized in cross-cultural psychology (e.g., values, social axioms, cultural tightness), but instead in contents involving religion, regularity-norm behaviors, family roles and living arrangements, and ethnonationalism.
Abstract: We know that there are cross-cultural differences in psychological variables, such as individualism/collectivism. But it has not been clear which of these variables show relatively the greatest differences. The Survey of World Views project operated from the premise that such issues are best addressed in a diverse sampling of countries representing a majority of the world's population, with a very large range of item-content. Data were collected online from 8,883 individuals (almost entirely college students based on local publicizing efforts) in 33 countries that constitute more than two third of the world's population, using items drawn from measures of nearly 50 variables. This report focuses on the broadest patterns evident in item data. The largest differences were not in those contents most frequently emphasized in cross-cultural psychology (e.g., values, social axioms, cultural tightness), but instead in contents involving religion, regularity-norm behaviors, family roles and living arrangements, and ethnonationalism. Content not often studied cross-culturally (e.g., materialism, Machiavellianism, isms dimensions, moral foundations) demonstrated moderate-magnitude differences. Further studies are needed to refine such conclusions, but indications are that cross-cultural psychology may benefit from casting a wider net in terms of the psychological variables of focus.
Citations
More filters
[...]
TL;DR: The results indicate that generalizing from students to the general public can be problematic when personal and attitudinal variables are used, as students vary mostly randomly from the generalpublic.
Abstract: Most psychological studies rely on student samples. Students are usually considered as more homogenous than representative samples both within and across countries. However, little is known about the nature of the differences between student and representative samples. This is an important gap, also because knowledge about the degree of difference between student and representative samples may allow to infer from the former to the latter group. Across 59 countries and 12 personality (Big-5) and attitudinal variables we found that differences between students and general public were partly substantial, incoherent, and contradicted previous findings. Two often used cultural variables, embeddedness and intellectual autonomy, failed to explain the differences between both groups across countries. We further found that students vary as much as the general population both between and within countries. In summary, our results indicate that generalizing from students to the general public can be problematic when personal and attitudinal variables are used, as students vary mostly randomly from the general public. Findings are also discussed in terms of the replication crisis within psychology.
184 citations
Journal Article•
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the relationship between the changes of the eco-cultural realities such as economic organization, political institutions, legal and educational systems and religion in 30 nations and the family, as expressed by family structure, demographies, family rules, functions, values and observed changes.
Abstract: The five authors of this extraordinary book are all professors of psychology with a special interest in cross-cultural psychology and work at universities in Greece, Canada, the Netherlands, Turkey and Belgium. They came together in their quest to learn more about the relationship between the changes of the eco-cultural realities such as economic organization, political institutions, legal and educational systems and religion in 30 nations and the family, as expressed by family structure, demographies, family rules, functions, values and observed changes. Their hope was to clarify to what extent globalization or an increase in educational opportunities modifies family traditions, such as relationships between family members, parental divorce rates, the role of fathers and mothers etc. This is based on the authors premise that the family is an institution which is adapted to its ecological, cultural and sociopolitical situation and provides the main context for the ontogenetic development from infancy to adulthood.
To obtain reliable and valid data, they interviewed and evaluated the opinions of some 5,500 students at colleges and universities in 30 countries, chosen to reflect specific geopolitical zones. There was a northern, central and southern zone of North America, including the US, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Brazil; a northern and southern zone in Europe, including the UK, Germany, Holland, Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus etc; a North (Algeria)), East (Saudi Arabia), Central (Ghana) and South African zone, and a western (Iran, Ukraine), southern (Pakistan, India), eastern (China, Japan, South Korea) and Oceana (Indonesia) zone in Asia. The chosen countries also reflected the major religious groups in the world.
The book is divided into 2 parts. In part 1, the reader is introduced to the theoretical aspect of the study in 8 distinctive chapters. Beginning with a historical review of families and family change, one learns about methodologies used in assessing family functioning over time and the results of past studies. Other chapters describe the methodology of the present study, explain its hypotheses and provide the statistical data forming the results. In part 2, the 30 nations are examined individually, using very similar overall criteria. These include: a historical outline of the country described; important ecological features (e.g. location, size, weather, special challenges such as annual dry winds, etc.); economic organization; political and legal institutions; the major educational systems and main religions. The family is discussed by detailing marital traditions (e.g., restrictions of marrying direct relatives, choosing a wife, etc.); family structure (patriarchal, nuclear, patrilocal, e.g., determining how close sons have to live to their father after marriage, etc.) or kinship ties; family roles and functions (role and powers of mother, father, grandparents, etc.); and recent changes observed in the family. There are also appendices providing copies of the various questionnaires, scales and other assessment instruments used in the study.
While the authors provide many interesting data, there are some overarching findings. Despite the popular impression that there are more three generation families in the “Majority World” (denoting the world outside North America and Europe), this is incorrect as keeping three generations and/or large families in one house requires money which is not plentiful in the majority world. Cultural differences overall, based on emotional and material interdependence vs. independence, are more pronounced between rural and agricultural populations in the western and majority world. This means that in addition to the emotional value, children retain financial value only in agricultural and rural populations of the majority world while middle class city people all over the world and those living in western rural areas value their children’s material independence but support their emotional interdependence. This dialectic synthesis suggests that even in westernized societies we find an increasing interdependent emotional aspect of the family which reminds us of our past cultural heritage. This is also shown in the high value kinship relationships have all over the world, expressed by the number of telephone calls made to relatives in the west and visits to relatives in the majority world. Another example of these cultural universals that have not been modified despite our more global existence is the fact that fathers universally still do not do much housework while mothers everywhere are more engaged in child care. Nevertheless, the authoritarian hierarchy based role of fathers has declined in all cultural groups, regardless of religion and income although there remain significant differences among the 30 nations.
The book’s main shortcoming is the relatively small number of subjects, varying from 65 to 450 per nation that the authors could enroll and, as university students, their potentially biased view of their own culture. While this may bias the collected data, the authors’ effort to use standardized instruments and questionnaires and their most thoughtful interpretation of their data provide the reader with a fascinating look into both cultural universals and differences in family characteristics across cultures.
166 citations
[...]
TL;DR: The Big Five is a useful model of attributes now commonly used in cross-cultural research, but without the support of strong measurement invariance (MI) evidence as mentioned in this paper, and the Big Six has been proposed as a...
Abstract: The Big Five is a useful model of attributes now commonly used in cross–cultural research, but without the support of strong measurement invariance (MI) evidence. The Big Six has been proposed as a...
105 citations
[...]
TL;DR: This paper reviewed contemporary work on cultural factors affecting moral judgments and values, and those affecting moral behaviors, highlighting examples of within-societal cultural differences in morality, to show that these can be as substantial and important as cross-Societal differences.
Abstract: We review contemporary work on cultural factors affecting moral judgments and values, and those affecting moral behaviors. In both cases, we highlight examples of within-societal cultural differences in morality, to show that these can be as substantial and important as cross-societal differences. Whether between or within nations and societies, cultures vary substantially in their promotion and transmission of a multitude of moral judgments and behaviors. Cultural factors contributing to this variation include religion, social ecology (weather, crop conditions, population density, pathogen prevalence, residential mobility), and regulatory social institutions such as kinship structures and economic markets. This variability raises questions for normative theories of morality, but also holds promise for future descriptive work on moral thought and behavior.
79 citations
[...]
TL;DR: This article presents a tool and a method for measuring the psychological and cultural distance between societies and creating a distance scale with any population as the point of comparison, and applied the fixation index (FST) to the World Values Survey of cultural beliefs and behaviors.
Abstract: In this article, we present a tool and a method for measuring the psychological and cultural distance between societies and creating a distance scale with any population as the point of comparison. Because psychological data are dominated by samples drawn from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) nations, and overwhelmingly, the United States, we focused on distance from the United States. We also present distance from China, the country with the largest population and second largest economy, which is a common cultural comparison. We applied the fixation index (FST), a meaningful statistic in evolutionary theory, to the World Values Survey of cultural beliefs and behaviors. As the extreme WEIRDness of the literature begins to dissolve, our tool will become more useful for designing, planning, and justifying a wide range of comparative psychological projects. Our code and accompanying online application allow for comparisons between any two countries. Analyses of regional diversity reveal the relative homogeneity of the United States. Cultural distance predicts various psychological outcomes.
78 citations
Cites background from "Cross-Cultural Differences in a Glo..."
[...]
References
More filters
[...]
TL;DR: A convenient, although not comprehensive, presentation of required sample sizes is providedHere the sample sizes necessary for .80 power to detect effects at these levels are tabled for eight standard statistical tests.
Abstract: One possible reason for the continued neglect of statistical power analysis in research in the behavioral sciences is the inaccessibility of or difficulty with the standard material. A convenient, although not comprehensive, presentation of required sample sizes is provided here. Effect-size indexes and conventional values for these are given for operationally defined small, medium, and large effects. The sample sizes necessary for .80 power to detect effects at these levels are tabled for eight standard statistical tests: (a) the difference between independent means, (b) the significance of a product-moment correlation, (c) the difference between independent rs, (d) the sign test, (e) the difference between independent proportions, (f) chi-square tests for goodness of fit and contingency tables, (g) one-way analysis of variance, and (h) the significance of a multiple or multiple partial correlation.
33,656 citations
Book•
[...]
01 Jan 1973
TL;DR: The INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES CLIFFORD GEERTZ Books files are available at the online library of the University of Southern California as mentioned in this paper, where they can be used to find any kind of Books for reading.
Abstract: THE INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES CLIFFORD GEERTZ PDF Are you searching for THE INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES CLIFFORD GEERTZ Books files? Now, you will be happy that at this time THE INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES CLIFFORD GEERTZ PDF is available at our online library. With our complete resources, you could find THE INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES CLIFFORD GEERTZ PDF or just found any kind of Books for your readings everyday.
19,734 citations
"Cross-Cultural Differences in a Glo..." refers background in this paper
[...]
Book•
[...]
20 Apr 2001
TL;DR: In this paper, values and culture data collection, treatment and validation power distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism and Collectivism Masculinity and Femininity Long versus Short-Term Orientation Cultures in Organizations Intercultural Encounters Using Culture Dimension Scores in Theory and Research
Abstract: Values and Culture Data Collection, Treatment and Validation Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism and Collectivism Masculinity and Femininity Long versus Short-Term Orientation Cultures in Organizations Intercultural Encounters Using Culture Dimension Scores in Theory and Research
15,212 citations
Book•
[...]
TL;DR: A review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species – frequent outliers.
Abstract: Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.
4,860 citations
[...]
TL;DR: European Americans were found to be both more individualistic-valuing personal independence more-and less collectivistic-feeling duty to in-groups less-than others, and among Asians, only Chinese showed large effects, being both less individualistic and more collectivist.
Abstract: Are Americans more individualistic and less collectivistic than members of other groups? The authors summarize plausible psychological implications of individualism-collectivism (IND-COL), meta-analyze cross-national and within-United States IND-COL differences, and review evidence for effects of IND-COL on self-concept, well-being, cognition, and relationality. European Americans were found to be both more individualistic-valuing personal independence more-and less collectivistic-feeling duty to in-groups less-than others. However, European Americans were not more individualistic than African Americans, or Latinos, and not less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans. Among Asians, only Chinese showed large effects, being both less individualistic and more collectivistic. Moderate IND-COL effects were found on self-concept and relationality, and large effects were found on attribution and cognitive style.
4,748 citations