Frequently Ignored Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Stress Research

Abstract

Globalization and free trade have underscored the need to ascertain whether psychological theories developed primarily in English-speaking countries can be transferred to other cultural settings. At the core of this aspiration seems to be the identification of aspects of stress that are culture-general and those that are culture specific (often referred to as the etic-emic distinction). However, in addition to sharing the same limitations and problems of studies done within countries or cultures, conducting stress research across countries and cultures presents unique methodological challenges. This chapter focuses on issues of establishing equivalent samples and on methods that permit reasonable inferences about culture effects, hence minimizing sampling and measurement artifacts potentially confounded with culture. In our view, cross-cultural/cross-national (CC/CN) stress researchers should pay close attention to two major aspects of equivalence, namely measurement and sampling equivalence. First, CC/CN comparisons require the administration of the same measures across countries/cultures and, therefore, they often require foreign-language translations of measures that were originally developed and tested in a single language, most often English. Unfortunately, carefully done translations, albeit linguistically correct, may not necessarily produce equivalent instruments, even when back-translation procedures are employed. Second, valid conclusions about culture differences necessitate samples that differ only on culture. In CC/CN research, there are numerous factors potentially confounded with culture or country. A myriad of factors confounded with culture represent potential rival explanations of culture effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved) (from the chapter)