Advertisement

Cross-Cultural Research Methods

Strategies, Problems, Applications
  • Richard W. Brislin
Part of the Human Behavior and Environment book series (HUBE, volume 4)

Abstract

Cross-cultural studies are necessary for the complete development of theories in environmental research since no one culture contains all environmental conditions that can affect human behavior. Likewise, no one country contains all possible types of man-made changes of the physical environment, nor all of the man-made adaptations to natural conditions such as climate, noise, air quality, and potential hazards. In addition, many places in which environmental researchers might be asked to work are in parts of the world where “development” is seen as a necessity or at least a desideratum. These places are often in countries where empirical research is not a well-established entity, hence the necessity for importing advisers from other countries. Although frequently forgotten (Fahvar & Milton, 1972), environmental assessments prepared by such advisers should include analyses of how a development project will affect a culture and even the behavior of people for whom the project was designed.

Keywords

Content Analysis Cultural Anthropology Plausible Alternative Ponzo Illusion Core Item 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altman, I. & Chemers, M. Cultural aspects of environment-behavior relationships. In H. Triandis & R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 5). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. Some Chinese methods of dealing with crowding. Urban Anthropology, 1972, 2(2), 141–150.Google Scholar
  3. Barry, H. The Human Relations Area Files. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, J. On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 1969, 4, 119 – 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry, J. Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York: Wiley/Halsted, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Berry, J. Introduction to cross-cultural methodology. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. Brebner, J., Rump, E., & Delin, P. A cross-cultural replication of attitudes to the physical environment. International Journal of Psychology, 1976, 11, 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brislin, R. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1970, 1, 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brislin, R. Interaction among members of nine ethnic groups and the belief-similarity hypothesis. Journal of Social Psychology, 1971, 85, 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brislin, R. Comparative research methodology: Cross-cultural studies. International Journal of Psychology, 1976a, 11, 215–229.Google Scholar
  11. Brislin, R. (Ed.). Translation: Applications and research. New York: Gardner and Wiley/ Halsted, 1976b.Google Scholar
  12. Brislin, R. Methodology of cognitive studies. In G. Kearney & D. McElwain (Eds.), Aboriginal cognition: Retrospect and prospect. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1976c, pp. 29–53.Google Scholar
  13. Brislin, R. Oral and written materials: Content analysis and translation. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. Brislin, R., & Baumgardner, S. Non-random sampling of individuals in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1971, 4, 397–400.Google Scholar
  15. Brislin, R., & Holwill, F. Reactions of indigenous people to the writings of behavioral and social scientists. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1977, 2(2), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brislin, R., & Keating, C. Cultural differences in the perception of a three dimensional Ponzo illusion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1976, 7, 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brislin, R., Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R. Cross-cultural research methods. New York: John Wiley, 1973.Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, D. The mutual methodological relevance of anthropology and psychology. In F. Hsu (Ed.), Psychological anthropology. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1961.Google Scholar
  19. Campbell, D. A cooperative multinational opinion sample exchange. Journal of Social Issues, 1968, 24, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Campbell, D. Perspective artifact and control. In R. Rosenthal & R. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic Press, 1969, pp. 351–382.Google Scholar
  21. Campbell, D., & Erlebacher, A. How regression artifacts in quasi-experimental evaluations can mistakenly make compensatory education look harmful. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Compensatory education: A national debate. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1970, pp. 185–210.Google Scholar
  22. Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. Experimental and quasi-experimental design for research. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1966.Google Scholar
  24. Cole, M., & Scribner, S. Culture and thought: A psychological introduction. New York: Wiley, 1974.Google Scholar
  25. Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D. The cultural context of learning and thinking. New York: Basic Books, 1971.Google Scholar
  26. Cronbach, L. J., & Drenth, P. J. D. (Eds.). Mental tests and cultural adaptation. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.Google Scholar
  27. Dasen, P. R. Cross-cultural Piagetian research: A summary. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1972, 3, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Davidson, A., Jaccard, J., Triandis, H. C., Morales, M., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. Cross-cultural model testing: Toward a solution of the emic-etic dilemma. International Journal of Psychology, 1976, 11, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Deregowski, J. Perception. In H. Triandis & W. Lonner (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 3). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  30. Doob, L. Foreword. In R. Brislin, W. Lonner, & R. Thorndike, Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley, 1973, pp. v-vii.Google Scholar
  31. Dziuban, C., & Shirkey, E. When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 358–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ervin-Tripp, S. Language and TAT content in French-English bilinguals. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 500–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fahvar, M., & Milton, J. (Eds.). The careless technology: Ecology and international development. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  34. Frey, F. Cross-cultural survey research in political science. In R. Holt & J. Turner (Eds.), The methodology of comparative research. New York: The Free Press, 1970, pp. 173–264.Google Scholar
  35. Frijda, N., & Jahoda, G. On the scope and methods of cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 1966, 1, 109–127.Google Scholar
  36. Golde, P. (Ed.). Women in the field: Anthropological experiences. Chicago: Addison-Wesley, 1970.Google Scholar
  37. Goodenough, W. Field methods. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  38. Groenman, S. Foreword. In P. Jacob, Values and the active community. New York: Free Press, 1971, pp. xv-xix.Google Scholar
  39. Gudykunst, W., Hammer, M., & Wiseman, R. An analysis of an integrated approach to cross-cultural training. International Journal of Inter cultural Relations, 1977, 1(2), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Guthrie, G. Unexpected correlations and the cross-cultural method. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1971, 2, 315–323.Google Scholar
  41. Guthrie, G. Problems of measurement in cross-cultural research. In L. Loeb-Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1977, 285, pp. 131–140.Google Scholar
  42. Hall, E. The silent language. New York: Doubleday, 1959.Google Scholar
  43. Harrington. R. One man’s special island. Parade, January 7, 1973, pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
  44. Holsti, O. Content analysis. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, (Vol. 2, 2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968, pp. 596–692.Google Scholar
  45. Irvine, S. Tests and psychometrics. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  46. Irwin, M., Klein, R., Engle, P., Yarbrough, C., & Nerlove, S. The problem of establishing validity in cross-cultural measurements. In L. Loeb-Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1977, 285, pp. 308–325.Google Scholar
  47. Irwin, M., Schafer, G., & Feiden, C. Emic and unfamiliar category sorting of Mano farmers and U.S. undergraduates. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1974, 5, 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Janis, I. The problem of validating content analysis. In H. Laswell & N. Leites (Eds.), The language of politics: Studies in quantitative semantics. New York: George Stewart, 1949, pp. 55–82.Google Scholar
  49. Johannes, R. Traditional law of the sea in Micronesia. Micronesica, 1977, 23(2), 121–127.Google Scholar
  50. Keesing, R., & Keesing, F. New perspectives in cultural anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1971.Google Scholar
  51. Kroeber, A., & Kluckhohn, C. Culture. Papers of the Peabody Museum, 1952, 47, No. 1.Google Scholar
  52. Liebowitz, H., & Pick, H. Cross-cultural and educational aspects of the Ponzo illusion. Perception and Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 403–432.Google Scholar
  53. Longabough, R. Naturalistic observations. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  54. Lonner, W. An analysis of the prepublication evaluation of cross-cultural manuscripts: Implications for future research. In R. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on learning. New York: Wiley/Halsted, 1975, pp. 305–320.Google Scholar
  55. Lonner, W. The use of Western-based tests in intercultural counselling. In P. Pedersen, W. Lonner, & J. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling across cultures. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1976, pp. 170–183.Google Scholar
  56. McCormack, W. Problems of American scholars in India. Asian Survey, 1976, 26, 1064 – 1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 252–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Muttagi, P. Tariff studies for water supply and sewerage services in greater Bombay. Bombay: Tata Institute of Social Sciences, 1977 (Sion-Trombay Road, Deonor, Bombay-400 088, India).Google Scholar
  59. Naroll, R., & Cohen, R. (Eds.). A handbook of method in cultural anthropology. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  60. Naroll, R., & Michik, G. Hologeistic studies. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  61. O’Barr, W., Spain, D., & Tessler, M. (Eds.). Survey research in Africa: Its applications and limits. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  62. Osgood, C. Objective indicators of subjective culture. In L. Loeb-Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1977, 285, pp. 435–150.Google Scholar
  63. Osgood, C., May, W., & Miron, M. Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  64. Over, R. Explanations of geometric illusions. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 545–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pareek, U. Interviewing. In H. Triandis and J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  66. Phillips, H. Problems of meaning and translation in field work. Human Organization, 1960, 18, 185–192.Google Scholar
  67. Piaget, J. Nécessité et signification des recherches comparatives en psychologie génétique. International Journal of Psychology, 1966, 1, 3–13. Translated into English and reprinted in J. W. Berry & P. Dasen (Eds.), Culture and cognition. London: Methuen, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pollnac, R. Illusion susceptibility and adaptation to the marine environment: Is the carpentered world hypothesis seaworthy? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1977, 8, 425 – 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Poortinga, Y. Some implications of three different approaches to intercultural comparison. In J. Berry & W. Lonner (Eds.), Applied cross-cultural psychology. Amsterdam: Swetz and Zeitlinger, 1975, pp. 329–332.Google Scholar
  70. Price-Williams, D. R. A study concerning concepts of conservation of quantities among primitive children. Acta Psychologica, 1961, 18, 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. Equivalence in cross-national research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1966, 30, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley, 1970.Google Scholar
  73. Rapoport, A. Environmental cognition in cross-cultural perspective. In G. Moore & R. Gollendge (Eds.), Environmental knowing. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1976.Google Scholar
  74. Sechrest, L. On the need for experimentation in cross-cultural research. In L. Loeb-Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1977 285, pp. 104–118.Google Scholar
  75. Sechrest, L., Fay, T., & Zaidi, S. Problems of translation in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1972 3(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Segall, M., Campbell, D., & Herskovits, M. The influence of culture on visual perception. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.Google Scholar
  77. Siegel, S. Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956f.Google Scholar
  78. Strodtbeck, F. Considerations of meta-method in cross-cultural studies. American Anthropologist, 1964, 66, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sudman, S. Applied sampling. New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  80. Tagumpay-Castillo, G. A view from Southeast Asia. In American Research on Southeast Asian Development: Asian and American Views. New York: The Asia Society, 1968, pp. 20–49.Google Scholar
  81. Talbot, L. Ecological consequences of rangeland development in Masailand, East Africa. In M. Farvar & J. Milton (Eds.), The careless technology: Ecology and international development. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, 1972, pp. 694–711.Google Scholar
  82. Thorndike, R. Regression fallacies in the matched groups experiment. Psychometrika, 1943, 7, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Triandis, H. Approaches toward minimizing translation. In R. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research. New York: Wiley/Halsted, 1976, pp. 229–243.Google Scholar
  84. Triandis, H. Subjective culture and interpersonal relations across cultures. In L. Loeb-Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1977a, 285, pp. 418–434.Google Scholar
  85. Triandis, H. Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1977b.Google Scholar
  86. Triandis, H., & Berry, J. (Eds.). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2) Methodology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.Google Scholar
  87. Triandis, H. C., Davis, E., & Takezawa, S. Some determinants of social distance among American, German, and Japanese students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 540–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Waddell, E. The hazards of scientism: A review article. Human Ecology, 1977, 5, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Werner, O., & Campbell, D. Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In R. Naroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology. New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1970, pp. 398–420.Google Scholar
  90. Wesley, F., & Karr, C. Problems in establishing norms for cross-cultural comparisons. International Journal of Psychology, 1966, 1, 257–262.Google Scholar
  91. White, G. (Ed.). Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  92. Whiting, J. Effects of climate on certain cultural practices. In A. Vayda (Ed.), Environment and cultural behavior: Ecological studies in cultural anthropology. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, 1969, pp. 416–455. Originally published in W. Goodenough (Ed.), Explorations in cultural anthropology, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964, pp. 511–544.Google Scholar
  93. Whiting, J. Methods and problems in cross-cultural research. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968, pp. 693–728.Google Scholar
  94. Whiting, J., Kluckhohn, E., & Anthony, A. The function of male initiation ceremonies at puberty. In E. Maccoby, T. Newcomb, & E. Hartley, Readings in social psychology, New York: Holt, 1958, pp. 359–370.Google Scholar
  95. Wohlwill, J. The environment is not in the head! In W. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental design research (Vol. 2). Stroudsberg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1973, pp. 166–181.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard W. Brislin
    • 1
  1. 1.East-West CenterCulture Learning InstituteHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations