Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science

, Volume 48, Issue 4, pp 418–434 | Cite as

Quantitative and Qualitative Research across Cultures and Languages: Cultural Metrics and their Application

  • Wolfgang WagnerEmail author
  • Karolina Hansen
  • Nicole Kronberger
Regular Article


Growing globalisation of the world draws attention to cultural differences between people from different countries or from different cultures within the countries. Notwithstanding the diversity of people’s worldviews, current cross-cultural research still faces the challenge of how to avoid ethnocentrism; comparing Western-driven phenomena with like variables across countries without checking their conceptual equivalence clearly is highly problematic. In the present article we argue that simple comparison of measurements (in the quantitative domain) or of semantic interpretations (in the qualitative domain) across cultures easily leads to inadequate results. Questionnaire items or text produced in interviews or via open-ended questions have culturally laden meanings and cannot be mapped onto the same semantic metric. We call the culture-specific space and relationship between variables or meanings a ’cultural metric’, that is a set of notions that are inter-related and that mutually specify each other’s meaning. We illustrate the problems and their possible solutions with examples from quantitative and qualitative research. The suggested methods allow to respect the semantic space of notions in cultures and language groups and the resulting similarities or differences between cultures can be better understood and interpreted.


Methods Cross-cultural psychology Meaning Cultural metric Quantitative research Qualitative research 



Writing of this paper by Karolina Hansen was supported by the post-doctoral internship ‘Fuga’ awarded to her by the Polish National Science Centre (DEC-2013/08/S/HS6/00573).


  1. Allum, N. C. (1998). A social representations approach to the comparison of three textual corpora using ALCESTE. London School of Economics and Political Science, UK: Unpublished MSc Thesis.Google Scholar
  2. Amir, Y., & Sharon, I. (1987). Are Social Psychological Laws Cross-Culturally Valid? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 383–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed Etics, Emics, Derived Etics. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 721–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilewicz, M., & Bocheńska, A. (2010). How language affects two components of racial prejudice? A socio-psychological approach to linguistic relativism. In U. Okulska & P. Cap (Eds.), Perspectives in Politics and Discourse (pp. 385–396). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brislin, R. (2000). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  6. Caillaud, S., Kalampalikis, N., & Flick, U. (2012). The Social Representations of the Bali Climate Conference in The French and German Media. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(4), 363–378. doi: 10.1002/casp.1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. R. (1961). The mutual methodological relevance of anthropology and psychology. In F. L. K. Hsu (Ed.), Psychological Anthropology. Homewood, Ill: Dorsey.Google Scholar
  8. Dahlin, B., & Watkins, D. (2000). The Role Of Repetition in the Processes of Memorising and Understanding: A Comparison of The Views of German and Chinese Secondary School Students in Hong Kong. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 65–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Douglas, M. (1982). In the Active Voice. London: Routledge & Kegan.Google Scholar
  10. Gibbons, J.L., Lynn, M., Stiles, D.A., Jerez de Berducido, E., Richter, R., Walker, K. & Wiley, D. (1993). Guatemalan, Filipino, and U.S.A. adolescents’ images of women as office workers and homemakers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 373-388.Google Scholar
  11. Greenfield, P. M. (2000). Three Approaches to the Psychology of Culture: Where do they come from? Where do they go? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(3), 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayashi, C. (1950). On The Quantification of Qualitatice Data from the Mathematics-Statistical point of view. Annals of Statistical Mathematics, 2.Google Scholar
  13. Helfrich, H. (1999). Beyond the Dilemma of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Resolving the Tension Between etic and emic Approaches. Culture & Psychology, 5, 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hohl, K., & Gaskell, G. (2008). European Public Perceptions of food risk: Cross-National and Methodological Comparisons. Risk Analysis, 28(2), 311–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01021.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jang, D.-H., & Kim, L. (2013). Framing ‘World class’ Differently: International and Korean Participants’ Perceptions of the World Class University Project. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 65(6), 725–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim, U. (2000). Indigenous, Cultural, and Cross-cultural Psychology: A theoretical, Conceptual, and Epistemological Analysis. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krackhardt, D. (1987). Cognitive Social Structures. Social Networks, 9, 109–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kronberger, N. & Wagner, W. (2000). Keywords in context: Statistical analysis of text features. In: M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.). Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound. A Practical Handbook. London: SageGoogle Scholar
  19. Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. (1979). What’s Cultural About Cross-Cultural Cognitive Psychology? Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawson, C. W., & Saltmarshe, D. K. (2002). The Psychology of Economic Transformation: The impact of the Market on Social Institutions, Status and Values in a Northern Albanian Village. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(4), 487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. LeVine, R. A. (1982). Culture, Behaviour and Personality. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  22. Mäkiniemi, J.-P., Pirttilä-Backman, A.-M., & Pieri, M. (2011). Ethical and unethical food. Social representations among Finnish, Danish and Italian students. Appetite, 56(2), 495–502. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.023.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meaning of Work Research Team (1987). International comparison of the relationships between MOW variables. In: Meaning of Work Research Team (Eds.). The Meaning of Working. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Mueller, S. T., & Veinott, E. S. (2008). Paper presented at the Cognitive Science ‘08. Washington: DC. Cultural mixture modeling: Identifying cultural consensus (and disagreement) using finite mixture modeling.Google Scholar
  25. Mueller, S. T., Sieck, W. R., & Veinott, E. S. (2007). Cultural metrics: A finite mixture models approach. Klein Associates: Final Research Report.Google Scholar
  26. Piew, L. S., Sarmiento, C. Q., & Kawasaki, K. (2005). Southeast Asian and Japanese cultural influences on the understanding of scientific concepts. Proceedings of an Intellectual Exchange Project Workshop funded by the Japan Foundation for fiscal year, 2005. Retrieved March 27, 2014 from
  27. Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  28. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Reinert, M. (1983). ‘Une méthode de classification descendante hiérarchique: application a l’analyse lexicale par contexte’ [A method of descendent hierarchical classification: Application to a lexical analysis per context, French]. Les Cahiers de l’Analyse des Données, 8(2), 187–198.Google Scholar
  31. Reinert, M. (1990). ’ALCESTE. Une méthodologie d’analyse des données textuelles et une application: Aurélia de Gérard de Nerval’ [ALCESTE. A methodology for analysing textual data and an application: Aurélia by Gérard de Nerval, French]. Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique, 26, 24-54.Google Scholar
  32. Shweder, R. A. (2000). The psychology of practice and the practice of the three psychologies. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Straub, J. (1999). Handlung, Interpretation, Kritik. Grundzüge einer textwissenschaftlichen Handlungs- und Kulturpsychologie [Action, interpretation, critique. An outline of a text-scientific psychology of action and culture]. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  34. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Triandis, H. C. (2000). Dialectics between cultural and cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Leung, K., & Hui, C. K. (1990). A method for determining cultural, demographic, and personal constructs. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 302–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van de Geer, J. P. (1993). Multivariate Analysis of Categorical Data: Applications. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Wagner, W., & Yamori, K. (1999). Can Culture Be a Variable? Dispositional explanation and cultural metrics. In T. Sugiman, M. Karasawa, J. H. Liu, & C. Ward (Eds.), Progress in Asian Social Psychology (Vol. 2). Seoul: Kyoyook-Kwahak-Sa Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Wagner, W., Valencia, J., & Elejabarrieta, F. (1996). Relevance, discourse and the ‘hot’ stable core of social representations—A structural analysis of word associations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Allansdottir, A., Cheveigné, S., Dahinden, U., Diego, C., Montali, L., Mortensen, A., Pfenning, U., Rusanen, T., & Seger, N. (2001). Nature in disorder: The troubled public of biotechnology. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. London: Museum of Science and Industry.Google Scholar
  43. Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Allum, N., De Cheveigné, S., Diego, C., Gaskell, G., et al. (2002). Pandora’s genes - images of genes and nature. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology - the Making of a Global Controversy (pp. 244–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Weller, S. C. (1984). Cross-cultural concept of illness: Variation and validation. American Anthropologist, 86, 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Woolf, L. M., & Hulsizer, M. R. (2011). Why diversity matters: The power of inclusion in research methods. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Cross-cultural psychology: Contemporary themes and perspectives (pp. 56–72). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Yang, K.-S. (2000). Mono-cultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(3), 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Wagner
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Karolina Hansen
    • 2
  • Nicole Kronberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social and Economic PsychologyJohannes Kepler University LinzLinzAustria
  2. 2.University of WarsawWarsawPoland
  3. 3.University of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations