Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
H. Triandis, V. Vassiliou, M. Nassiakou (1968)
Three cross-cultural studies of subjective culture.Journal of personality and social psychology, 8 4
F. Wesley, C. Karr (1966)
Problems in Establishing Norms for Cross-Cultural ComparisonsInternational Journal of Psychology, 1
J. Piaget (1966)
Necessite Et Signification Des Recherches Comparatives En Psychologie GenetiqueInternational Journal of Psychology, 1
R. Gallimore, L. Weiss, R. Finney (1974)
"Cultural Differences in Delay of Gratification: A Problem of Behavior Classification": Erratum.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30
C. Dziuban, E. Shirkey (1974)
When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules.Psychological Bulletin, 81
P. Dasen (1972)
Cross-Cultural Piagetian Research: A SummaryJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3
H. Triandis, E. Davis, S. Takezawa (1965)
Some determinants of social distance among American, German, and Japanese students.Journal of personality and social psychology, 2 4
A. Davidson, J. Jaccard, H. Triandis, M. Morales, R. Díaz-Guerrero (1976)
Cross-cultural model testing: Toward a solution of the etic-emic dilemma.International Journal of Psychology, 11
C. Osgood (1971)
Exploration in Semantic Space: A Personal Diary1Journal of Social Issues, 27
M. Brewer (1968)
Determinants of social distance among East African tribal groups.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10
H. Triandis (1964)
Cultural Influences Upon Cognitive ProcessesAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1
D. Campbell (1968)
A Cooperative Multinational Opinion Sample Exchange1, 2Journal of Social Issues, 24
A. Przeworski, H. Teune (1966)
EQUIVALENCE IN CROSS-NATIONAL RESEARCHPublic Opinion Quarterly, 30
D. Williams (1974)
Psychological Experiment and Anthropology: The Problem of CategoriesEthos, 2
R. Brislin, S. Baumgardner (1971)
Non-Random Sampling of Individualsin Cross-Cultural ResearchJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2
J. Sinha (1968)
The n-ach/n-cooperation under limited/unlimited resource conditionsJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4
R. Brislin (1973)
Cross-cultural research methods
J. Berry (1969)
ON CROSS‐CULTURAL COMPARABILITYInternational Journal of Psychology, 4
R. Feldman (1968)
Response to compatriot and foreigner who seek assistance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10
R. Brislin (1970)
Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural ResearchJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1
A. Przeworski, H. Teune (1970)
The logic of comparative social inquiry
H. Triandis (1973)
The analysis of subjective culture
Cross‐cultural research can make contributions to theory development by identifying groups of people who seem not to behave according to established theories and by increasing the range of independent variables available for study in any one culture. A major methodological orientation to such studies, developed over the last 10 years, is the emic‐etic distinction. An emic analysis documents valid principles that describe behavior in any one culture, taking into account what the people themselves value as meaningful and important. The goal of an etic analysis is to make generalizations across cultures that take into account all human behavior. Examples of these approaches are given from studies on ingroup‐outgroup relations in Greece and the United States; and studies on the need for achievement and its relation to the need for affiliation. A specific method to document emic and etic principles is presented which involves the development of core items to measure concerns in all cultures under study, and culture‐specific items which are designed to measure concerns in one culture that may not be appropriate for all cultures under study. The techniques of back‐translation and decentering are related to the emic‐etic approach, as are the techniques developed by Triandis which involve the development of research instruments within each culture and the use of factor analysis. The most general approach, applicable to all comparative studies, is the plausible rival hypothesis analysis which forces the research to examine each and every potential explanation for any data set. The suggestion is made that the future of cross‐cultural research will depend on its contribution to theory in general psychology, and methods (such as those presented here) will only be a means to the major goal of discovering important, central facts about human behavior.
International Journal of Psychology – Wiley
Published: Oct 1, 1976
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.