3.1 Research Methods and Culture

Imagine that you’re a psychologist studying how people manage stress. You design a survey, but the responses don’t make sense when you use it in different countries. What went wrong? How people express emotions, ask for help, or even define “stress” can vary widely across cultures. This lesson will explore how cultural backgrounds shape the research process, from designing studies and collecting data to interpreting results. We’ll also tackle how to spot biases, make ethical decisions, and handle sensitive topics when conducting research with people from diverse cultures. Let’s discover how embracing cultural diversity leads to better, more meaningful research!

Psychologists are interested in the ways that cultural forces influence psychological processes. They study culture to better understand how it affects our emotions, identity, relationships, and decisions. Psychologists generally ask different questions and use different methods from anthropologists. Anthropologists are more likely to conduct indigenous (ethnographic) studies. In this type of research, the scientist spends time observing a culture and conducting interviews. In this way, anthropologists often attempt to understand and appreciate culture from the point of view of the people within it. Psychologists who adopt this approach are frequently thought to be studying cultural psychology. They are likely to use interviews as a primary research methodology.

Cultural psychology is distinct from cross-cultural psychology, and this can be confusing. Cross-cultural studies use standard forms of measurement, such as Likert scales, to compare people from different cultures and identify their differences (a Likert scale is a five-point scale used to allow an individual to express how much they agree or disagree with a specific statement). Cross-cultural studies serve as the backbone of cross-cultural research in psychology, but methodological issues can impact research quality.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Both cultural and cross-cultural studies have their advantages and disadvantages. Interestingly, researchers can learn a lot from cultural similarities and differences; both require comparisons across cultures. For example, Diener and Oishi (2000) were interested in exploring the relationship between money and happiness. They were specifically interested in cross-cultural differences in levels of life satisfaction between people from different cultures. To examine this question, they used international surveys that asked all participants the same question, such as “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?” and used a standard scale for answers; in this case, one that asked people to use a 1-10 scale to respond. They also collected data on average income levels in each nation and adjusted these for local differences in how many goods and services money can buy.

The Diener research team (2000) discovered that, across more than 40 nations, there was a tendency for money to be associated with higher life satisfaction. People from more affluent countries such as Denmark, Switzerland, and Canada had relatively high satisfaction, while their counterparts from poorer countries such as India and Belarus had lower levels. There were some interesting exceptions, however. People from Japan—a wealthy nation—reported lower satisfaction than their peers in nations with similar wealth. In addition, people from Brazil—a poorer nation—had unusually high scores compared to their income counterparts.

Cross-cultural (method) validation is another type of cross-cultural study that establishes whether assessments (e.g., surveys, tests, standard scales) are valid and reliable when used across cultures. Cross-cultural validation studies evaluate the equivalence of psychological measures across cultures. Instruments used across cultures should be equivalent. Measurement equivalence refers to the similarity in conceptual meaning and empirical method between cultures. On the other hand, bias refers to differences that do not have the same meaning within and across cultures.

Two essential features of any instrument or standard scale are validity and reliability.

1. The validity of an instrument is another way of saying accuracy. Validity asks whether the instrument (or test) measures what it is supposed to measure.
2. The reliability of an instrument is another way of stating the consistency of the results or the consistency of the instrument.

Possible surveying results of a psychological construct, shown as 4 clusters of bull’s-eye hit attempts. A survey must accurately sample the construct (attempts evenly cover the target) and produce consistent measurements (attempts clustered closely).

Often, instruments, surveys, and interview questionnaires created in the United States show strong reliability and validity when tested in the United States (i.e., have been validated). Still, these measures often do not perform well in other cultures. Common validation issues include problems with language (i.e., translation issues) and assumptions that the topic area is the same across cultures (i.e., is anxiety the same everywhere?).

Diversity in Medical Research

Diversity is important in medical research as well. Watch this video to learn more.

Test your understanding