Comparative Culturology and Cross-Cultural Psychology: How Comparing Societal Cultures Differs From Comparing Individuals’ Minds Across Cultures
Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung › begutachtet
Standard
Comparative Culturology and Cross-Cultural Psychology : How Comparing Societal Cultures Differs From Comparing Individuals’ Minds Across Cultures. / Minkov, Michael; Vignoles, Vivian L.; Welzel, Christian et al.
in: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Jahrgang 55, Nr. 2, 03.2024, S. 164-188.Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung › begutachtet
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative Culturology and Cross-Cultural Psychology
T2 - How Comparing Societal Cultures Differs From Comparing Individuals’ Minds Across Cultures
AU - Minkov, Michael
AU - Vignoles, Vivian L.
AU - Welzel, Christian
AU - Akaliyski, Plamen
AU - Bond, Michael Harris
AU - Kaasa, Anneli
AU - Smith, Peter B.
N1 - Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The work of the first author was supported by the Basic Research Program of the Higher School of Economics, Russian Federation. The other authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article. Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024/3
Y1 - 2024/3
N2 - Cross-cultural research in social and behavioral sciences has expanded hugely over the past 50 years, but progress is currently hampered by a lack of appreciation of the profoundly differing principles and goals of two distinct traditions. The first is the main variant of cross-cultural psychology (CCP), focusing on how culture shapes individual psychological functioning. The second was pioneered by Hofstede. It studies societal differences, and we name it “comparative culturology” (CC). We explain how these two paradigms differ. CCP is grounded in psychology and typically looks for unobservable individual-level constructs, which supposedly exist independently of their measurement, to provide understanding of individual differences as affected by culture. CC is an interdisciplinary field whose roots and impact span sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, management studies, psychology, and beyond. CC measures cultural dimensions as group-level constructs created by researchers, which are best understood as ecological manifolds: conglomerates of conceptually and statistically associated variables (not necessarily held together by a single underlying factor) that collectively explain national (and other group) differences. Given these paradigmatic distinctions, the two fields need not, and cannot, use the same validation methods. They should co-exist and collaborate based on mutual appreciation of their differences, without attempts by either field to impose its idiosyncrasies on the other.
AB - Cross-cultural research in social and behavioral sciences has expanded hugely over the past 50 years, but progress is currently hampered by a lack of appreciation of the profoundly differing principles and goals of two distinct traditions. The first is the main variant of cross-cultural psychology (CCP), focusing on how culture shapes individual psychological functioning. The second was pioneered by Hofstede. It studies societal differences, and we name it “comparative culturology” (CC). We explain how these two paradigms differ. CCP is grounded in psychology and typically looks for unobservable individual-level constructs, which supposedly exist independently of their measurement, to provide understanding of individual differences as affected by culture. CC is an interdisciplinary field whose roots and impact span sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, management studies, psychology, and beyond. CC measures cultural dimensions as group-level constructs created by researchers, which are best understood as ecological manifolds: conglomerates of conceptually and statistically associated variables (not necessarily held together by a single underlying factor) that collectively explain national (and other group) differences. Given these paradigmatic distinctions, the two fields need not, and cannot, use the same validation methods. They should co-exist and collaborate based on mutual appreciation of their differences, without attempts by either field to impose its idiosyncrasies on the other.
KW - comparative culturology
KW - cross-cultural psychology
KW - culture
KW - latent factors
KW - manifold construct
KW - reflective versus formative construct
KW - Politics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85183870923&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/04297145-d408-3e07-a647-bc4aa0f2413f/
U2 - 10.1177/00220221231220027
DO - 10.1177/00220221231220027
M3 - Journal articles
AN - SCOPUS:85183870923
VL - 55
SP - 164
EP - 188
JO - Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
JF - Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
SN - 0022-0221
IS - 2
ER -