Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T02:36:19.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Bias and real differences in cross-cultural differences: neither friends nor foes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Fons J. R. van de Vijver
Edited by
Fons J. R. van de Vijver ,
Athanasios Chasiotis  and
Seger M. Breugelmans
Fons J. R. van de Vijver
Affiliation:
Tilburg University, the Netherlands, and North-West University, South Africa
Fons J. R. van de Vijver
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Athanasios Chasiotis
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Seger M. Breugelmans
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Though the difficulty of establishing comparability is widely acknowledged, the challenge is more often ignored than met.

(Smith, 2003, p. 69)

The chapter starts from the above quotation by Tom Smith, who complained in a book on cross-cultural survey methods that comparability issues in cross-cultural surveys are more often mentioned than addressed. In a similar vein, Bollen, Entwistle and Alderson (1993) found in a meta-analysis of macrocomparative studies that equivalence is infrequently addressed. The situation in cross-cultural psychology is not much different; there is a widely acknowledged, shared awareness of potential pitfalls of direct cross-cultural score comparisons, but the sensitivity for the issue is insufficiently accompanied by tests of instrument adequacy in a specific study. It was argued in the first chapter by the editors that method issues are at the core of cross-cultural psychology. This chapter discusses one specific method issue, namely possible sources of bias in cross-cultural studies and the ramifications of bias for the cross-cultural comparability of scores. The editors mentioned in their chapter that the methodological problems of cross-cultural studies were already described seventy years ago and that many empirical researchers, methodologists and psychometricians have tried to tackle these problems. The question is addressed here to what extent we have advanced in this field. The present chapter deals with the question of how we should evaluate the current situation with regard to the study of bias.

Type
Chapter
Information
Fundamental Questions in Cross-Cultural Psychology , pp. 235 - 258
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Interviewer mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 210–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arends-Tóth, J. V., and Vijver, F. J. R. (2008). Family relationships among immigrants and majority members in the Netherlands: The role of acculturation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 466–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azhar, M. Z., and Varma, S. L. (2000). Mental illness and its treatment in Malaysia. In Al-Issa, I. (ed.), Al-Junun: Mental illness in the Islamic world (pp. 163–85). Madison, CT: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, P. T., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, S. B. G., and Eysenck, H. J. (1998). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: An examination of the factorial similarity of P, E, N, and L across 34 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 805–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., and Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd edn). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biesheuvel, S. (1943). African intelligence. Johannesburg: South African Institute of Race Relations.Google Scholar
Biesheuvel, S. (1958). Objectives and methods of African psychological research. Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 161–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K. A., Entwisle, B., and Alderson, A. S. (1993). Macrocomparative research methods. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 321–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camilli, G., and Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Bermudez, J., Maslach, C., and Ruch, W. (2000). Multivariate methods for the comparison of factor structures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 437–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jong, J. T. V. M., Komproe, I. V., Spinazzola, J., Kolk, B. A., Ommeren, M. H., and Marcopulos, F. (2008). DESNOS in three postconflict settings: Assessing cross-cultural construct equivalence. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, A. L., and Marcopulos, B. A. (2008). A comparison of normative data for the Trail Making Test from several countries: Equivalence of norms and considerations for interpretation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 239–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, R., Fontaine, J. R. J., Vijver, F. J. R., and Hemert, D. A. (2009). An examination of acquiescent response styles in cross-cultural research. In Gari, A. and Mylonas, K. (eds.), Quod erat demonstrandum: From Herodotus' ethnographic journeys to cross-cultural research (pp. 137–48). Athens: Pedio Books Publishing.Google Scholar
Fischer, R., and Mansell, A. (2007). Levels of organizational commitment across cultures: A meta-analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., and Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures: Separating sampling fluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 345–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Formann, A. K., and Piswanger, K. (1979). Wiener Matrizen-Test: Ein Rasch-skalierter sprachfreier Intelligenztest [The Viennese Matrices Test: A Rasch-calibrated non-verbal intelligence test]. Weinheim: Beltz Test.Google Scholar
Harzing, A. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research: A 26-country study. Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6, 243–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, D. Y. F. (1996). Filial piety and its psychological consequences. In Bond, M. H. (ed.), Handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 155–65). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hofer, J., Chasiotis, A., Friedlmeier, W., Busch, H., and Campos, D. (2005). The measurement of implicit motives in three cultures: Power and affiliation in Cameroon, Costa Rica, and Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 689–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Holland, P. W., and Wainer, H. (eds.) (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jahoda, G. (1982). Psychology and anthropology: A psychological perspective. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, T. P., and Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Social desirability in cross-cultural research. In Harkness, J. A., Vijver, F. J. R. and Mohler, P. Ph. (eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 195–204). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kiers, H. A. L. (1990). SCA: A program for simultaneous components analysis. Groningen: IEC ProGamma.Google Scholar
Linn, R. L. (1993). The use of differential item functioning statistics: A discussion of current practice and future implications. In Holland, P. W. and Wainer, H. (eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 349–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lyberg, L., Biemer, P., Collins, M., Leeuw, E., Dippo, C., Schwarz, N., and Trewin, D. (1997). Survey measurement and process quality. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further intercultural comparisons. In McCrae, R. R. and Allik, J. (eds.), The five-factor model across cultures (pp. 105–26). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R., and Allik, J. (eds.) (2002). The Five-Factor Model of personality across cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRef
Meiring, D., Vijver, F. J. R., Rothmann, S., and Barrick, M. R. (2005). Construct, item, and method bias of cognitive and personality tests in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31, 1–8.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. P., and Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, V., Abas, M., Broadhead, J., Todd, C., and Reeler, A. (2001). Depression in developing countries: Lessons from Zimbabwe. British Medical Journal, 322, 482–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piswanger, K. (1975). Interkulturelle Vergleiche mit dem Matrizentest von Formann [Cross-cultural comparisons with Formann's Matrices Test]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna, Vienna.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H. (1971). Cross-cultural comparison of maximum performance tests: Some methodological aspects and some experiments. Psychologia Africana, Monograph Supplement, no. 6.
Poortinga, Y. H. (1989). Equivalence of cross cultural data: An overview of basic issues. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 737–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poortinga, Y. H., and Vijver, F. J. R. (1987). Explaining cross-cultural differences: Bias analysis and beyond. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 259–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H., Vijver, F. J. R., Joe, R. C., and Koppel, J. M. H. (1987). Peeling the onion called culture: A synopsis. In Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 22–34). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H., and Flier, H. (1988). The meaning of item bias in ability tests. In Irvine, S. H. and Berry, J. W. (eds.), Human abilities in cultural context (pp. 166–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, A. M., Horvath, M., Ployhart, R. E., Schmitt, N., and Slade, L. A. (2000). Hypothesizing differential item functioning in global employee opinion surveys. Personnel Psychology, 53, 541–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandal, G. M., Vijver, F. J. R., Bye, H. H., Sam, D. L., Amponsah, B., Cakar, N., Franke, G., Ismail, R.,Kai-Chi, C., Kjellsen, K., and Kosic, A. (in preparation). Intended self-presentation tactics in job interviews: A 10-country study.
Sheppard, R., Han, K., Colarelli, S. M., Dai, G., and King, D. W. (2006). Differential item functioning by sex and race in the Hogan Personality Inventory. Assessment, 13, 442–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sireci, S. (2011). Evaluating test and survey items for bias across languages and cultures. In Matsumoto, D. M. and Vijver, F. J. R. (eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 216–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, T. (2003). Developing comparable questions in cross-national surveys. In Harkness, J. A., Vijver, F. J. R. and Mohler, P. Ph. (eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 69–91). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Spini, D. (2003). Measurement equivalence of 10 value types from the Schwartz Value Survey across 21 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, K., Takei, N., Kawai, M., Minabe, Y., and Mori, N. (2003). Is Taijin Kyofusho a culture-bound syndrome?American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanaka-Matsumi, J., and Draguns, J. G. (1997). Culture and psychotherapy. In Berry, J. W., Segall, M. H. and Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (vol. III, pp. 449–491). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C. (eds.) (2003). Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Vijver, F. J. R. (1997). Meta-analysis of cross-cultural comparisons of cognitive test performance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 678–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R. (2002). Inductive reasoning in Zambia, Turkey, and The Netherlands: Establishing cross-cultural equivalence. Intelligence, 30, 313–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Fischer, R. (2009). Improving methodological robustness in cross-cultural organizational research. In Bhagat, R. S. and Steers, R. M. (eds.), Handbook of culture, organizations, and work (pp. 491–517). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Leung, K. (2011). Equivalence and bias: A review of concepts, models, and data analytic procedures. In Matsumoto, D. M. and Vijver, F. J. R. (eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 17–45). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Poortinga, Y. H. (1991). Testing across cultures. In Hambleton, R. K. and Zaal, J. (eds.), Advances in educational and psychological testing (pp. 277–308). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Poortinga, Y. H. (2002). Structural equivalence in multilevel research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemert, D. A., Vijver, F. J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., and Georgas, J. (2002). Structural and functional equivalence of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire within and between countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1229–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H., and Verhallen, T. M. (2004). Response styles in rating scales: Evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 346–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leest, P. F. (1997). Bias and equivalence research in the Netherlands. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 319–29.Google Scholar
Schilt-Mol, T. M. M. L. (2007). Differential Item Functioning en itembias in de Cito-Eindtoets Basisonderwijs [Differential item functioning and item bias in the Cito Eindtoets Basisonderwijs]. Amsterdam: Aksant.Google Scholar
Vandenberg, R. J., and Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasti, S. A. (2002). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Test of an integrated model in the Turkish context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 525–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×