Bias and Equivalence in Cross-Cultural Research

Bias and equivalence are key concepts in the methodology of cross-cultural studies. Bias is a generic term for any challenge of the comparability of cross-cultural data; bias leads to invalid conclusions. The demonstration of equivalence (lack of bias) is a prerequisite for any cross-cultural comparison. we first describe considerations that are relevant when choosing instruments in a cross-cultural study, notably the question of whether an existing or new instrument is to be preferred.We then describe the definition, manifestation, and sources of three types of bias (construct, method, and item bias), and three levels of equivalence (construct, measurement unit, and full score equivalence). We provide strategies to minimize bias and achieve equivalence that apply either to the design, implementation, or statistical analysis phase of a study. The need to integrate these strategies in cross-cultural studies is emphasized so as to increase the validity of conclusions regarding cross-cultural similarities and differences and rule out alternative explanations of cross-cultural differences

Types of Comparative Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology

From a methodological perspective cross-cultural studies in psychology differ in three dimensions. First, cross-cultural psychological studies can be exploratory or test specific hypotheses. Second, some cross-cultural studies compare countries or ethnic groups while other cross-cultural studies relate specific characteristics of a country or ethnicity (e.g., socialization patterns or religiosity) to psychological variables. Third, studies can compare either constructs (e.g., do Chinese and Kenyans mean the same when they say that a person is intelligent?) or score levels (e.g., are Americans more extravert than Italians?). A classification of cross-cultural psychological studies, based on the three dimensions, is presented and examples are given

Towards a theory of bias and equivalence

"Bias refers to the presence of nuisance factors in cross-cultural research. Three types of bias are distinguished, depending on whether the nuisance factor is located at the level of the construct (construct bias), the measurement instrument as a whole (method bias) or the items (item bias or differential item functioning). Equivalence refers to the measurement level characteristics that apply to cross-cultural score comparisons; three types of equivalence are defined: construct (identity of constructs across cultures), measurement unit (identity of measurement unit), and scalar equivalence (identity of measurement unit and scale origin). Bias often jeopardizes equivalence. Implications of the occurrence of bias on equivalence are described. Examples of how equivalence can be enhanced in multilingual studies are given." (author's abstract

National and European Identities of Bulgarian and Dutch Students

The present study explored the adoption of national and European identities and the perceptions of own nation and Europe in Bulgarian and Dutch students. A questionnaire developed by Georgas et al. (2004) was administered to 256 students in Bulgaria and 190 students in the Netherlands. The majority of participants in both countries (88% in Bulgaria and 85% in the Netherlands) endorsed both national and European identity; European identity was secondary to national identity. There were marked cross-national differences in the way own country and Europe were perceived. Bulgarian students perceived larger differences between the two identities than did Dutch students. Results are in accordance with theories regarding national and supranational identities as compatible and suggest a stronger role of instrumental elements for European identification in Bulgarian students as compared to Dutch students

Return Migration

This article aims to present an overview of the literature on return migration. Through combining the perspectives of various disciplines, notably economy, sociology, and psychology, the main theoretical issues, studies and findings in the field of remigration are presented. In this paper, we concentrate on traditional immigrants with a ‘pull’ incentive (e.g., labor migrants) who migrated mostly for economic or sometimes educational reasons rather than the immigrants who are forced from their own countries and ‘pushed’ (e.g., political refugees) into a new environment (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). We address the strengths and the weaknesses of the extant models and theories in explaining the causes and the consequences of the remigration experiences of the traditional migrants. Finally, drawing from a study of Turkish return migration from Western Europe, we discuss the contextual conditions such as attitudes of mainstream groups in the remigration country which are salient moderators of the acculturation process and which makes return migration different from migration