Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Quantitative Resilience Research across Cultures and Contexts Fons J. R. van de Vijver.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Quantitative Resilience Research across Cultures and Contexts Fons J. R. van de Vijver."— Presentation transcript:

1 Quantitative Resilience Research across Cultures and Contexts Fons J. R. van de Vijver

2 Outline 1. General introduction 1. General introduction Tertium comparationisTertium comparationis Approaches: Absolutism/relativism/universalism Approaches: Absolutism/relativism/universalism Identity of meaningIdentity of meaning 2. Common problems of cross-cultural studies (and their solutions) 2. Common problems of cross-cultural studies (and their solutions) 3. Establishing similarity of meaning: 3. Establishing similarity of meaning: 3a. Bias and equivalence: Taxonomies3a. Bias and equivalence: Taxonomies 3b. Examples3b. Examples 4. Acculturation 4. Acculturation Concepts and Models / AssessmentConcepts and Models / Assessment 5. Test adaptations 5. Test adaptations Concepts / ExampleConcepts / Example

3 Conceptual core of cross-cultural studies Conceptual core of cross-cultural studies Aim is to compare constructs or scoresAim is to compare constructs or scores Is resilience the same across the globe? Is resilience the same across the globe? Is Country A more/less resilient than Country B? Is Country A more/less resilient than Country B? Comparison always implies some shared quality (tertium comparationis): If a comparison visualizes an action, state, quality, object, or a person by means of a parallel which is drawn to a different entity, the two things which are being compared do not necessarily have to be identical. However, they must possess at least one quality in common. This common quality has traditionally been referred to as tertium comparationis (Source: always implies some shared quality (tertium comparationis): If a comparison visualizes an action, state, quality, object, or a person by means of a parallel which is drawn to a different entity, the two things which are being compared do not necessarily have to be identical. However, they must possess at least one quality in common. This common quality has traditionally been referred to as tertium comparationis (Source: General Introduction

4 Views on the Relation between Resilience and Culture 1. Absolutism (“etic”) 1. Absolutism (“etic”) Resilience refers to a universal set of characteristics that individuals use to cope with and thrive despite adversityResilience refers to a universal set of characteristics that individuals use to cope with and thrive despite adversity 2. Relativism 2. Relativism Resilience refers to a concept (dealing with coping and thriving) that is universally applicable; however, its manifestations may differ across culturesResilience refers to a concept (dealing with coping and thriving) that is universally applicable; however, its manifestations may differ across cultures Example: Zimmerman & Brenner (2010, referring to Ungar, 2006)Example: Zimmerman & Brenner (2010, referring to Ungar, 2006) The conceptual foundation of resiliency theory can be applicable across cultures; the extent to which resources and assets are applied by youth in their experiences of adversity, however, may not be consistent across all contexts. The conceptual foundation of resiliency theory can be applicable across cultures; the extent to which resources and assets are applied by youth in their experiences of adversity, however, may not be consistent across all contexts. 3. Relativism (“emic”) 3. Relativism (“emic”) Resilience refers to basic concept of coping and thriving; however, link between resilience and cultural context is so close that cross- cultural comparisons of resilience are futile and superficialResilience refers to basic concept of coping and thriving; however, link between resilience and cultural context is so close that cross- cultural comparisons of resilience are futile and superficial

5 Choice between models is often made on an ideological basis Choice between models is often made on an ideological basis However, more productive to see absolutism and relativism as extremes along a continuum However, more productive to see absolutism and relativism as extremes along a continuum Empirical studies possible of adequacy of these viewpoints Empirical studies possible of adequacy of these viewpoints Cross-cultural evidence is vital for determining which viewpoint holds for a particular measure/construct Cross-cultural evidence is vital for determining which viewpoint holds for a particular measure/construct

6 Part 2 What are common problems in comparative studies? What are common problems in comparative studies? Central problem:Central problem: Identity of meaning Identity of meaning

7 Common methodological problems of cross-cultural research and their solutions Common methodological problems of cross-cultural research and their solutions

8 Problem 1 Cross cultural differences in scores cannot be interpreted due to rival hypotheses Cross cultural differences in scores cannot be interpreted due to rival hypotheses Particularly salient in two-culture studies that do not consider contextual factorsParticularly salient in two-culture studies that do not consider contextual factors Solution: Solution: Anticipate on rival hypotheses by including more cultures or measuring contextual factorsAnticipate on rival hypotheses by including more cultures or measuring contextual factors

9 Problem 2 Cross-cultural similarities and differences are visually (and not statistically) tested Cross-cultural similarities and differences are visually (and not statistically) tested A common example is the absence of a test of similarities of internal consistency coefficientsA common example is the absence of a test of similarities of internal consistency coefficients Solution Solution Explicit tests of cross-cultural similarities and differences; e.g., simple test of similarity of independent reliabilities availableExplicit tests of cross-cultural similarities and differences; e.g., simple test of similarity of independent reliabilities available

10 Test of Independent Reliabilities

11 Problem 3 Samples show confounding differences Samples show confounding differences Particularly salient in convenience samplingParticularly salient in convenience sampling Solution: Solution: Adaptation of study design and assessment of confounding differencesAdaptation of study design and assessment of confounding differences

12 Problem 4 Means of different cultural groups are compared without assessing the equivalence Means of different cultural groups are compared without assessing the equivalence Particularly salient when studying new instruments or working with cultures in which instrument has not been usedParticularly salient when studying new instruments or working with cultures in which instrument has not been used Solution: Solution: Assessment of structural and metric equivalence; assessment of structural equivalence/differential item functioning should be a routine part of analysis, similar to routine assessment of internal consistencyAssessment of structural and metric equivalence; assessment of structural equivalence/differential item functioning should be a routine part of analysis, similar to routine assessment of internal consistency

13 Problem 5 Cultural characteristics are attributed to all individuals of that culture (ecological fallacy) Cultural characteristics are attributed to all individuals of that culture (ecological fallacy) Particularly common in studies of individualism—collectivismParticularly common in studies of individualism—collectivism Solution: Solution: Awareness of distinction between individual-and culture-level characteristicsAwareness of distinction between individual-and culture-level characteristics Assessment of relevant characteristics, such as individualism—collectivism, at individual levelAssessment of relevant characteristics, such as individualism—collectivism, at individual level

14 Problem 6 No check on quality of translation/ adaptation No check on quality of translation/ adaptation Check is often not reported or procedure is poorly specified (e.g., translation back translation has been used, but results of procedure are not reported)Check is often not reported or procedure is poorly specified (e.g., translation back translation has been used, but results of procedure are not reported) Solution: Solution: Awareness that translation back translation is not always the best possible method; other approaches, such as committee approach, may be more suitableAwareness that translation back translation is not always the best possible method; other approaches, such as committee approach, may be more suitable More detail in reports about translation/adaptation procedureMore detail in reports about translation/adaptation procedure

15 Problem 7 Lack of rationale for selecting cultures Lack of rationale for selecting cultures Convenience sampling of cultures is by far the most common procedure in cross-cultural psychology; most common comparison is between Japan and the USConvenience sampling of cultures is by far the most common procedure in cross-cultural psychology; most common comparison is between Japan and the US Solution: Solution: Explain why the culture was chosenExplain why the culture was chosen

16 Problem 8 There is a verification bias in studies of common paradigms There is a verification bias in studies of common paradigms Particularly salient in studies of individualism –collectivismParticularly salient in studies of individualism –collectivism Solution: Solution: More critical appreciation of the boundaries of the construct, more focus on falsificationMore critical appreciation of the boundaries of the construct, more focus on falsification

17 Problem 9 There is a focus on the statistical significance of cross-cultural differences There is a focus on the statistical significance of cross-cultural differences In the first and two related problems:In the first and two related problems: Implicit goal of cross-cultural psychology is not the establishment of cross-cultural differences Implicit goal of cross-cultural psychology is not the establishment of cross-cultural differences Focus on significance detracts attention from effect sizes Focus on significance detracts attention from effect sizes Solution: Solution: Balanced treatment of similarities and differences; differences easier to interpret against a backdrop of similaritiesBalanced treatment of similarities and differences; differences easier to interpret against a backdrop of similarities More effect sizes should be reported, such as Cohen’s d and (partial) eta squares.More effect sizes should be reported, such as Cohen’s d and (partial) eta squares.

18 Problem 10 Results are generalized to large populations, often complete populations of countries, although no probability sampling has been employed to recruit participants Results are generalized to large populations, often complete populations of countries, although no probability sampling has been employed to recruit participants Particularly salient in convenience sampling of participants (often student samples)Particularly salient in convenience sampling of participants (often student samples) Solution Solution More attention in reports for sampling frame and for consequences on external validityMore attention in reports for sampling frame and for consequences on external validity

19 Part 3a Bias and equivalence: Bias and equivalence: Definitions of conceptsDefinitions of concepts A frameworkA framework

20 (a) Bias and Equivalence Does the test measure the same attributes for all cultural groups? Does the test measure the same attributes for all cultural groups? Can scores be compared across ethnic groups? Can scores be compared across ethnic groups?

21 Bias: Taxonomy What is internal bias? What is internal bias? General: dissimilarity of psychological meaning across cultural groupsGeneral: dissimilarity of psychological meaning across cultural groups Practical: when cross-cultural differences do not involve target construct measured by the testPractical: when cross-cultural differences do not involve target construct measured by the test Theoretical: a cross-cultural comparison is biased when observed cross-cultural differences (in structure or level) cannot be fully interpreted in terms of the domain of interestTheoretical: a cross-cultural comparison is biased when observed cross-cultural differences (in structure or level) cannot be fully interpreted in terms of the domain of interest

22 Taxonomy of Bias

23 Construct Bias Partial nonoverlap of behaviors defining construct Partial nonoverlap of behaviors defining construct González Castro & Murray (2010): Criteria for resilience are based on studies with U.S. youth and adults, and one important cross-cultural issue involves how these criteria, as Westernized aspects of resilience, may or may not relate to resilience that is manifest in underdeveloped and/or non- Western countries.González Castro & Murray (2010): Criteria for resilience are based on studies with U.S. youth and adults, and one important cross-cultural issue involves how these criteria, as Westernized aspects of resilience, may or may not relate to resilience that is manifest in underdeveloped and/or non- Western countries.

24 Definition of happiness in individualistic and collectivistic countries?Definition of happiness in individualistic and collectivistic countries? Example: Uchida, Norasakkunkit and Kitayama (2004): Example: Uchida, Norasakkunkit and Kitayama (2004):

25 Types and Sources of Method Bias Method bias tends to have a global influence on cross- cultural score differences (e.g., increment due to social desirability)

26 Item Bias (also known as differential item functioning, DIF) Informal description Informal description Differences in psychological meaning of stimuli, due to anomalies at item level More formal definition: More formal definition: An item of a scale (e.g., measuring anxiety) is said to be biased if persons with the same trait anxiety, but coming from different cultures, are not equally likely to endorse the item.

27 Example of Biased Item

28 Types of (un)biased items

29 Analysis of Variance and Item Bias Item behavior examined per item Item behavior examined per item We do not test for cultural differences, but we test whether scores are identical for persons from different groups with an equal proficiency We do not test for cultural differences, but we test whether scores are identical for persons from different groups with an equal proficiency Note: regression approach quite similar (illustrated later) Note: regression approach quite similar (illustrated later)

30 Taxonomy of Equivalence Refers to level of comparability Refers to level of comparability Is related to bias: Is related to bias: Highest level of equivalence obtained for bias-free measurement

31 Types of Equivalence Three types: 1. “ Structural ” or “ functional equivalence ”1. “ Structural ” or “ functional equivalence ” 2. “ Metric equivalence ” or “ measurement unit equivalence ”2. “ Metric equivalence ” or “ measurement unit equivalence ” 3. “ Scalar equivalence ” or “ full score equivalence ”3. “ Scalar equivalence ” or “ full score equivalence ”

32 (a) “Structural” or “Functional Equivalence” Measurement of the same traits Measurement of the same traits Various statistical tools available, e.g., Various statistical tools available, e.g., exploratory factor analysis (with target rotation)exploratory factor analysis (with target rotation) confirmatory factor analysisconfirmatory factor analysis nomological networks (particularly relevant when items/questions are not identical across cultures)nomological networks (particularly relevant when items/questions are not identical across cultures) Qualitative equivalence can be firmly established Qualitative equivalence can be firmly established

33 (b) “Metric Equivalence”, “Measurement Unit Equivalence” Difference in offset of scales of cultural groups, equal measurement units Difference in offset of scales of cultural groups, equal measurement units Individual differences have a different meaning within and across cultures: Individual differences have a different meaning within and across cultures: no problems with offset in intra-cultural comparison, offset has to be added in cross-cultural comparison Statistical tool: structural equation modeling (confirmatory factor analysis) Statistical tool: structural equation modeling (confirmatory factor analysis)

34 (c) “Scalar Equivalence” or “Full Score Equivalence” Complete comparability of scores, both within and across cultures; seamless transfer of scores across cultures Complete comparability of scores, both within and across cultures; seamless transfer of scores across cultures Frequently taken as the aim of cross-cultural research Frequently taken as the aim of cross-cultural research

35 Comparability and Equivalence Levels EquivalenceComparability Structural Underlying construct Metric Same plus score metric Scalar Same plus origin of scale

36 Part 3b Establishing similarity of meaning Establishing similarity of meaning How to determine equivalence?How to determine equivalence? How to determine item bias?How to determine item bias?

37 Many statistical procedures available for testing structural equivalence Many statistical procedures available for testing structural equivalence Common approach: Common approach: Apply dimensionality-reduction techniqueApply dimensionality-reduction technique Compare underlying dimensions across culturesCompare underlying dimensions across cultures Similarity of underlying dimensions is criterion for similarity of meaningSimilarity of underlying dimensions is criterion for similarity of meaning

38 Testing Structural Equivalence: Exploratory Factor Analysis

39 Two procedures explained Two procedures explained 1. Pairwise comparisons1. Pairwise comparisons Compare all cultures in a pairwise manner Compare all cultures in a pairwise manner 2. “One to all” comparison2. “One to all” comparison Compare all cultures to a global, pooled solution Compare all cultures to a global, pooled solution

40 Characteristics of pairwise comparisonsCharacteristics of pairwise comparisons Strong point: much detail, all pairs compared Strong point: much detail, all pairs compared Weak point: computationally cumbersome, difficult to integrate Weak point: computationally cumbersome, difficult to integrate Characteristics of pooled comparisonsCharacteristics of pooled comparisons Strong point: maintains overview, integration Strong point: maintains overview, integration Weak point: can conceal subgroups of countries Weak point: can conceal subgroups of countries

41 Example Pairwise Data set: WISC-III administered in Canada and Netherlands/Flanders Data set: WISC-III administered in Canada and Netherlands/Flanders

42 Sample

43 12 Subtests 1. Picture Completion 2. Information 3. Coding 4. Similarities 5. Picture Arrangement 6. Arithmetic 7. Block Design 8. Vocabulary 9. Object Assembly 10. Comprehension 11. Symbol Search 12. Digit Span

44 Analysis Steps 1. Determine number of factors in combined sample 2. Carry out factor analyses per group 3. Compare factors across groups Note: analysis of scaled scores

45 1. Determining Number of Factors

46 Scree plot suggests the extraction of a single factor Scree plot suggests the extraction of a single factor Literature: Literature: Debate about 3 or 4 factorsDebate about 3 or 4 factors Hierarchical model of correlated factorsHierarchical model of correlated factors Here: 4 factors Here: 4 factors

47 2. Factor Analyses per group: Oblimin-Rotated Solution

48

49 3. Compare Factors across Groups Rotate one solution to the other Rotate one solution to the other Target rotations to deal with rotational freedom in factor analysisTarget rotations to deal with rotational freedom in factor analysis Evaluation by means of Tucker’s phi (factor congruence coefficient): Evaluation by means of Tucker’s phi (factor congruence coefficient): similarity of factors up to multiplying (positive) constant (correct for differences in eigenvalues across cultures)similarity of factors up to multiplying (positive) constant (correct for differences in eigenvalues across cultures)

50 3. Compare Factors across Groups Formula (x and y are loadings after target rotation of one to the other): Formula (x and y are loadings after target rotation of one to the other):

51 3. Compare Factors across Groups

52 Values above.90 are usually considered to be adequate and values above.95 to be excellent Values above.90 are usually considered to be adequate and values above.95 to be excellent Such high values point to similarity of factors  structural equivalence Such high values point to similarity of factors  structural equivalence

53 3. Compare Factors across Groups Dedicated software needed to compute Tucker’s phi Dedicated software needed to compute Tucker’s phi SPSS routine available SPSS routine available

54 Belg./Neth. rotated

55 PROPORTIONALITY COEFFICIENT per Factor:

56 Conclusion Strong evidence for similarity of first two factors Strong evidence for similarity of first two factors Less convincing for third and fourth factor Less convincing for third and fourth factor 56

57 Example “One to All” Steps in analysis: Steps in analysis: 1. Exploratory factor analysis on the total data set;1. Exploratory factor analysis on the total data set; Two procedures (note: correct for mean differences between groups): Two procedures (note: correct for mean differences between groups): “quick and dirty”: standardize scores per cultural groups and factor analyze the standardized scores“quick and dirty”: standardize scores per cultural groups and factor analyze the standardized scores more adequate solution: compute the weighted average of the covariance matrices of the cultural groups (weight by sample size)more adequate solution: compute the weighted average of the covariance matrices of the cultural groups (weight by sample size) this factor analysis provides the “pooled solution” this factor analysis provides the “pooled solution”

58 “One-to-all” procedure 2. Carry out a factor analysis in each cultural group 2. Carry out a factor analysis in each cultural group 3. Compute agreement of the pooled solution and each of the country solutions 3. Compute agreement of the pooled solution and each of the country solutions Source: Van de Vijver, F.J.R. & Poortinga, Y.H. (2002). Structural Equivalence in Multilevel Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.

59 Example World Values Survey (Inglehart, 1993, 1997) World Values Survey (Inglehart, 1993, 1997) 47,871 respondents from the following 39 “regions” (number of respondents in parentheses): Austria (1355), Belarus (912), Belgium (2318), Brazil (1672), Bulgaria (877), Canada (1545), Chile (1368), China (960), (the former) Czechoslovakia (1384), Denmark (892), (the former) East Germany (1226), Estonia (864), Finland (416), France (902), Hungary (886), Iceland (659), India (2150), Ireland (976), Italy (1810), Japan (655), Latvia (720), Lithuania (847), Mexico (1193), Moscow (894), Netherlands (935), Nigeria (954), Northern Ireland (283), Norway (1111), Poland (850), Portugal (976), Russia (1642), South Africa (2480), South Korea (1210), Spain (3408), Sweden (901), Turkey (886), United Kingdom (1356), United States (1688), and (the former) West Germany (1710). 47,871 respondents from the following 39 “regions” (number of respondents in parentheses): Austria (1355), Belarus (912), Belgium (2318), Brazil (1672), Bulgaria (877), Canada (1545), Chile (1368), China (960), (the former) Czechoslovakia (1384), Denmark (892), (the former) East Germany (1226), Estonia (864), Finland (416), France (902), Hungary (886), Iceland (659), India (2150), Ireland (976), Italy (1810), Japan (655), Latvia (720), Lithuania (847), Mexico (1193), Moscow (894), Netherlands (935), Nigeria (954), Northern Ireland (283), Norway (1111), Poland (850), Portugal (976), Russia (1642), South Africa (2480), South Korea (1210), Spain (3408), Sweden (901), Turkey (886), United Kingdom (1356), United States (1688), and (the former) West Germany (1710).

60 Instrument

61 Pooled solution (Sign of loadings in line with expectation)

62 Stem-and-Leaf Display of Agreement Pooled Loadings and Factor Loadings per Country

63 Correlations of GNP and the Loadings per Region on the Postmaterialism Scale Conclusion: Postmaterialism concept more salient in more affluent countries

64 Metric Equivalence at Scale Level : Structural Equation Modeling

65 Difference with Exploratory Factor Analyses Starts from covariance matrices Starts from covariance matrices Use metric informationUse metric information More parameters tested for cross-cultural similarity; examples More parameters tested for cross-cultural similarity; examples Factor loadingsFactor loadings Factor correlations/covariancesFactor correlations/covariances Error component of latent variablesError component of latent variables Error component of observed variablesError component of observed variables Enables the testing of a hierarchy of models Enables the testing of a hierarchy of models

66 Example of AMOS Model tested: one factor of verbal comprehension factor in two countries (Belgium/Netherlands and Canada) Model tested: one factor of verbal comprehension factor in two countries (Belgium/Netherlands and Canada) Models tested: Models tested: Identical factor loadings across countriesIdentical factor loadings across countries Free factor loadingsFree factor loadings Idem with a correlated errorIdem with a correlated error For diagram and output: see AMOS files For diagram and output: see AMOS files

67 Basic Model intelligence COMPREHEe5 1 VOCABULAe4 1 ARITHMETe3 1 SIMILARIe2 1 INFORMATe1 1 1 e6 1

68 Use of multiple group option Use of multiple group option

69 Measurement weights: regression weights in the measurement part of the model. In the case of a factor analysis model, these are the "factor loadings". Measurement weights: regression weights in the measurement part of the model. In the case of a factor analysis model, these are the "factor loadings". Structural residuals: variances and covariances of residual (error) variables in the structural part of the model. Structural residuals: variances and covariances of residual (error) variables in the structural part of the model. Measurement residuals: variances and covariances of residual (error) variables in the measurement part of the model. Measurement residuals: variances and covariances of residual (error) variables in the measurement part of the model.

70 AMOS model intelligence COMPREHEe5 d 1 VOCABULAe4 c 1 ARITHMETe3 b 1 SIMILARIe2 a 1 INFORMATe1 1 1 e6 1 Measurement weights

71 AMOS model intelligence COMPREHEe5 d 1 VOCABULAe4 c 1 ARITHMETe3 b 1 SIMILARIe2 a 1 INFORMATe1 1 1 e6 1 Structural residuals

72 AMOS model intelligence COMPREHEe5 d 1 VOCABULAe4 c 1 ARITHMETe3 b 1 SIMILARIe2 a 1 INFORMATe1 1 1 e6 1 Measurement residuals

73 BelgNeth - Unconstrained EstimateS.E.C.R.PLabel COMPREHE<---intelligence ***a1_1 VOCABULA<---intelligence ***a2_1 ARITHMET<---intelligence ***a3_1 SIMILARI<---intelligence ***a4_1 INFORMAT<---intelligence1.000 Regression Weights: (Canada - Unconstrained)Canada EstimateS.E.C.R.PLabel COMPREHE<---intelligence ***a1_2 VOCABULA<---intelligence ***a2_2 ARITHMET<---intelligence ***a3_2 SIMILARI<---intelligence ***a4_2 INFORMAT<---intelligence1.000

74 CMIN ModelNPARCMINDFPCMIN/DF Unconstrained Measurement weights Structural residuals Measurement residuals Saturated model Independence model

75 RMR, GFI ModelRMRGFIAGFIPGFI Unconstrained Measurement weights Structural residuals Measurement residuals Saturated model Independence model

76 RMSEA ModelRMSEALO 90HI 90PCLOSE Unconstrained Measurement weights Structural residuals Measurement residuals Independence model

77

78 Metric Equivalence at Item Level : Item Bias Analysis/ Differential Item Functioning (DIF)

79 Hundreds of statistical procedures available Hundreds of statistical procedures available Assumption: Assumption: Equal observed scores on global instrument (scale) in different cultures have the same meaningEqual observed scores on global instrument (scale) in different cultures have the same meaning Almost all techniques start from unidimensional scales Almost all techniques start from unidimensional scales Procedures test whether, given equal total scores, patterns of observed scores are the same across cultures Procedures test whether, given equal total scores, patterns of observed scores are the same across cultures Often applied procedures Often applied procedures ANOVA (example follows)ANOVA (example follows) Item Response TheoryItem Response Theory (in education) Mantel-Haenszel (equivalent to testing applicability of Rasch model)(in education) Mantel-Haenszel (equivalent to testing applicability of Rasch model)

80 How to Determine Item Bias? Analysis of variance Analysis of variance INPUT: a data matrix with interval- level dependent variables (e.g., Likert-scale), one variable indicating culture. INPUT: a data matrix with interval- level dependent variables (e.g., Likert-scale), one variable indicating culture.

81 Step 1: Compute Total Score Compute total test score (or mean item score) (so, a unifactorial scale is assumed). Compute total test score (or mean item score) (so, a unifactorial scale is assumed). COMPUTE sumscore = i_acad_1 + i_cult_1 + i_groo_1 + i_infl_1 + i_inte_1 + i_like_1 + i_look_1. EXECUTE.

82 Step 2: Determine Cutoffs (here three groups; percentiles 33 and 67). (here three groups; percentiles 33 and 67).EXAMINE VARIABLES=sumscore /PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF VARIABLES=sumscore /PLOT BOXPLOT STEMLEAF /COMPARE GROUP /PERCENTILES(33, 67) HAVERAGE /COMPARE GROUP /PERCENTILES(33, 67) HAVERAGE /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL.ORFREQUENCIES VARIABLES=sumscore VARIABLES=sumscore /NTILES= 3 /NTILES= 3 /ORDER= ANALYSIS. /ORDER= ANALYSIS.

83 Step 3: Compute Level RECODE sumscore sumscore (Lowest thru 48=1) (49 thru 57=2) (58 thru Highest=3) (ELSE=SYSMIS) (Lowest thru 48=1) (49 thru 57=2) (58 thru Highest=3) (ELSE=SYSMIS) INTO level. INTO level. VARIABLE LABELS level 'Score level'. EXECUTE.

84 Step 4: Carry out ANOVAs UNIANOVA i_acad_1 i_cult_1 i_groo_1 i_infl_1 i_inte_1 i_like_1 i_look_1 BY group level i_acad_1 i_cult_1 i_groo_1 i_infl_1 i_inte_1 i_like_1 i_look_1 BY group level /METHOD = SSTYPE(3) /METHOD = SSTYPE(3) /INTERCEPT = INCLUDE /INTERCEPT = INCLUDE /PRINT = DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ /PRINT = DESCRIPTIVE ETASQ /CRITERIA = ALPHA(.05) /CRITERIA = ALPHA(.05) /DESIGN = group level group*level. /DESIGN = group level group*level. Significant main effect of level: irrelevant Significant main effect of level: irrelevant Significant main effect of culture: uniform bias Significant main effect of culture: uniform bias Significant interaction between culture and level: nonuniform bias Significant interaction between culture and level: nonuniform bias NOTE: in large samples effect sizes can be used (eta squared >.06: Cohen’s medium effect size) NOTE: in large samples effect sizes can be used (eta squared >.06: Cohen’s medium effect size)

85 Regression DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=sumscore cult /STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX. /STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

86 * compute predictor values for these new variables. compute dev_mean=sumscore compute dev_cult=cult EXECUTE. compute interaction = dev_mean*dev_cult. EXECUTE.

87 REGRESSION /MISSING LISTWISE /MISSING LISTWISE /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) /NOORIGIN /NOORIGIN /DEPENDENT i_acad_1 /DEPENDENT i_acad_1 /METHOD=ENTER sumscore /METHOD=ENTER sumscore /METHOD=ENTER cult /METHOD=ENTER cult /METHOD=ENTER interaction. /METHOD=ENTER interaction.

88 Part 4. Acculturation Definition: Acculturation refers to changes that take place as a result of continuous first- hand contact between individuals of different cultural origins (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). Psychological acculturation refers to psychological aspects of process

89 Acculturation research traditions:Acculturation research traditions:  Stress and coping  Social learning  Social cognition (more recent)

90 Framework of Acculturation: Acculturation Variables Acculturation Conditions Acculturation Outcomes Cultural adoption Cultural maintenance Acculturation Orientations Psychological well-being (psychological distress, mood states, feelings of acceptance, and satisfaction) Sociocultural competence in ethnic culture (interaction with conationals, maintenance of culturally appropriate skills and behaviors) Characteristics of the receiving society (e.g., discrimination, opportunity structures) Characteristics of the society of origin (objective, perceived) Personal characteristics Characteristics of the immigrant group (objective, perceived) Sociocultural competence in mainstream culture (interaction with hosts, acquisition of culturally appropriate skills and behaviors)

91 Features Compare S-O-R model Compare S-O-R model Mediation model with feedback loops Mediation model with feedback loops Feedback almost never studiedFeedback almost never studied Causality usually inferred (so, some arbitrariness)Causality usually inferred (so, some arbitrariness) Implicit scheme Implicit scheme distal—proximal—outputdistal—proximal—output Term adaptation used in literature to refer to adjustment/output Term adaptation used in literature to refer to adjustment/output Problem: adaptation can refer to both product and processProblem: adaptation can refer to both product and process

92 Resilience-Related Pathways for Immigrants (González Castro & Murray, 2010)

93 Studies of Acculturation Conditions Personality often studied Personality often studied MPQ, Big FiveMPQ, Big Five Usually: extraversion +, neuroticism – Usually: extraversion +, neuroticism – Intelligence not studied Intelligence not studied Multiculturalism policies presumably unrelated to acculturation outcomes in Western societies Multiculturalism policies presumably unrelated to acculturation outcomes in Western societies ESS (Schalk-Soekar et al., 2007)ESS (Schalk-Soekar et al., 2007) ICSEY (Berry et al., 2006)ICSEY (Berry et al., 2006)

94

95 2 examples 2 examples Perceived acculturation contextPerceived acculturation context Perceived cultural distancePerceived cultural distance

96 Structure of Perceived Environment Mainstream context:

97 Minority context:

98 Role of (perceived) cultural distance

99

100

101 Psychological measures of distance (perceived cultural distance) load on a single factor Psychological measures of distance (perceived cultural distance) load on a single factor Note: models of cross-cultural distance models tend to be multidimensional (e.g., Hofstede)Note: models of cross-cultural distance models tend to be multidimensional (e.g., Hofstede) Dimensionality of Cultural Distance

102 Acculturation Orientations  Notes on terminology:  1. Various terms used, e.g., Strategies, styles, orientations  2. Adaptation usually reserved for output/adjustment; here: adoption, adopting  in original formulation: does the immigrant want to establish relationships with new culture?  Problem: Narrow conceptualization 102

103 Cultural maintenance Cultural maintenance maintaining characteristics of own (heritage) culturemaintaining characteristics of own (heritage) culture Cultural adoption Cultural adoption adopting characteristics of the culture of the society of settlementadopting characteristics of the culture of the society of settlement

104 Acculturation Models  Unidimensional model  Bidimensional model Cultural Cultural maintenanceadoption Cultural maintenance Cultural adoption

105 Yes Cultural adoption? Cultural maintenanc e? Berry’s Bidimensional Model No No Yes SeparationIntegration AssimilationMarginalization

106 Features Correlations of dimensions often vary Correlations of dimensions often vary Conceptually independentConceptually independent Empirically often negatively relatedEmpirically often negatively related Dimensions or orientations more important? Dimensions or orientations more important? Methodologically: dimensions often easier to deal withMethodologically: dimensions often easier to deal with Conceptually: orientations prevailConceptually: orientations prevail Note that integration refers to biculturalism in psychology and to sociocultural outcomes in sociology (a well integrated immigrant is a person who speaks the mainstream language, has a paid job, etc.) Note that integration refers to biculturalism in psychology and to sociocultural outcomes in sociology (a well integrated immigrant is a person who speaks the mainstream language, has a paid job, etc.)

107 Fusion Model Fusion Model Cultural adoption Culturalmaintenance New culture

108 Conceptually domains independent Conceptually domains independent Empirically not always the case Empirically not always the case Will depend on a host of factors, such as cultural distance, perceived pressure to assimilate, … Will depend on a host of factors, such as cultural distance, perceived pressure to assimilate, … Often slightly negative correlations Often slightly negative correlations Example: we found a clear negative corelation in the evaluations of Dutch and Turkish culture in a group of Turkish-Dutch Example: we found a clear negative corelation in the evaluations of Dutch and Turkish culture in a group of Turkish-Dutch Domain Specificity

109

110 Acculturation variables (conditions, orientations, and outcomes) are mixed Acculturation variables (conditions, orientations, and outcomes) are mixed Reliance on ‘Proxy’ measures of acculturation, such as length of stay (poor validity) Reliance on ‘Proxy’ measures of acculturation, such as length of stay (poor validity) Reliance on single-index measures (do not fully account for construct) Reliance on single-index measures (do not fully account for construct) Assessment of Acculturation: Recurrent Problems

111 Assessment of Acculturation: Recurrent Problems (cont’d) Measure of only adoption dimension, not of maintenance dimension Measure of only adoption dimension, not of maintenance dimension Acculturation aspects (e.g., cognition, values, attitudes) are often combined. Acculturation aspects (e.g., cognition, values, attitudes) are often combined. Sound and meaningful?Sound and meaningful? No psychometric properties reported No psychometric properties reported Often emphasis on actual behavior and language proficiency Often emphasis on actual behavior and language proficiency Measures often assess sociocultural outcomes that are used to predict other outcomes (e.g., school performance)Measures often assess sociocultural outcomes that are used to predict other outcomes (e.g., school performance) Measure of only adoption dimension, not of maintenance dimension Measure of only adoption dimension, not of maintenance dimension

112 Outcomes Focus on two kinds of outcomes Focus on two kinds of outcomes Psychological adjustment (stress & coping)Psychological adjustment (stress & coping) Sociocultural adjustment (social learning)Sociocultural adjustment (social learning) Almost no studies of cultural maintenance Almost no studies of cultural maintenance This lack of balance absent in sociolinguistics where both acquisition of mainstream and loss of ethnic languages is studiedThis lack of balance absent in sociolinguistics where both acquisition of mainstream and loss of ethnic languages is studied This lack of balance is also absent in study of acculturation orientationsThis lack of balance is also absent in study of acculturation orientations

113 Measurement Methods  Bidimensional model: (2) Two-statement method (maintenance; adoption) (3) Four-statement method (acculturation strategies)  Unidimensional model: (1) One-statement method (more - less)

114 (1) One-Statement Method  Example item (1 statement for 1 domain)  only Turkish friends.  more Turkish than Dutch friends.  I find it important to have  as many Turkish as Dutch friends.  more Dutch than Turkish friends.  only Dutch friends.  no Dutch and no Turkish friends.  only Turkish friends.  more Turkish than Dutch friends.  I find it important to have  as many Turkish as Dutch friends.  more Dutch than Turkish friends.  only Dutch friends.  no Dutch and no Turkish friends.  Advantages  Short(est) questionnaire Problem Problem  One dimension? HeritageMainstream

115  Recommendation  This method is often quite useful in practice, despite conceptual problems  Take domains into consideration public Dutch private Turkish  Research findings  Domain specificity (public, private components)  Domain specificity (public, private components) (1) One-Statement Method 115

116 (2) Two-Statement Method  Example (domain friends)  I think it is important to have Dutch friends  I think it is important to have Turkish friends  Disadvantages/questions  Are the two dimensions really independent?  How to define the four acculturation orientations?  Advantages  The two dimensions are measured independently  Items are not complex  Questionnaire is still short

117 How to Define the Four Acculturation Orientations? Sample-dependent coding: Sample-dependent coding: Mean or (more common) median splitMean or (more common) median split Advantage: optimal spread of participants across orientations Advantage: optimal spread of participants across orientations Disadvantage: validity can be problematic in groups with a shared preference (often the case for integration) Disadvantage: validity can be problematic in groups with a shared preference (often the case for integration)

118 How to Define the Four Acculturation Orientations? (cont’d) Response scale-dependent codingResponse scale-dependent coding –Midpoint split (average scores above or below midpoint of scale) Advantage: face validityAdvantage: face validity Disadvantage: what to do when scale has even number of anchors? Solutions such as random split or allocating these to a single group have an unavoidable arbitrarinessDisadvantage: what to do when scale has even number of anchors? Solutions such as random split or allocating these to a single group have an unavoidable arbitrariness

119 (2) Two-Statement Method Results Results Possible method factor, e.g., all maintenance items togetherPossible method factor, e.g., all maintenance items together Domain dependence:  public domain (Tu, Du)  private Dutch domain  private Turkish domainDomain dependence:  public domain (Tu, Du)  private Dutch domain  private Turkish domain Domain dependence does not always show up as separate factors (usually based on differences in mean scores)Domain dependence does not always show up as separate factors (usually based on differences in mean scores)

120 Potential problem: Potential problem: Two scores are sometimes converted to four orientations (e.g., distance method), which introduces dependencies in the dataTwo scores are sometimes converted to four orientations (e.g., distance method), which introduces dependencies in the data Recommendation Recommendation  This method can be used  Take domains into consideration

121 Cultural adoption (Du) Cultural maintenance (Tu) Acculturation Strategies Private Public

122 Results of the ‘one-statement’ and the ‘two-statement’ measurement methods: domain specificity Private Public Cultural adoption (Dutch) Culturalmaintenance(Turkish) Public Dutch Private Turkish Summary of Results

123 (3) Four-Statement Method  Example item (4 items for 1 domain)  (Int)I find it important to have Dutch friends and I find it also important to have Turkish friends.  (Sep)I find it not important to have Dutch friends but I find it important to have Turkish friends.  Advantage  The four strategies are measured independently  Disadvantages (questions)  Complex items (see Marginalization)  Questionnaire is long (per domain 4 questions)  Factors and (independent) dimensions?

124  Research findings  Bipolar unidimensional structure  Bipolar unidimensional structure (-) Integration(+) A S M  80-85% of our immigrant Dutch samples prefer integration (one score)  Advantages  Method is broad  Measure integration with more details (3) Four-Statement Method

125 Summary of Results MeasurementResults methods  Four-statement Insufficient discrimination: integration vs not-integration  Four-statement Insufficient discrimination: integration vs not-integration  One-statementDiscrimination between public and private domains  One-statementDiscrimination between public and private domains  Two-statementMore detailed information within domains  Two-statementMore detailed information within domains Two-statement method often works best.

126 Questions to consider when choosing/designing an instrument 1. The clear formulation of research goals and choice of acculturation variables. 1. The clear formulation of research goals and choice of acculturation variables. What is the role of acculturation in the study? Antecedent, mediating/moderating, or outcome variable What is the role of acculturation in the study? Antecedent, mediating/moderating, or outcome variable

127 2. Which acculturation aspects are dealt with? 2. Which acculturation aspects are dealt with? knowledge, values, attitudes, or behaviorknowledge, values, attitudes, or behavior

128 3. The choice of research methodology (how to study?) 3. The choice of research methodology (how to study?) “Soft” or “hard” measures“Soft” or “hard” measures Self-reports, observations, …Self-reports, observations, …

129 4. The choice of a measurement method (how to assess acculturation?) 4. The choice of a measurement method (how to assess acculturation?) Orientations: one-, two-, and four- statement methodOrientations: one-, two-, and four- statement method Perceived or actual environmental conditionsPerceived or actual environmental conditions Multilevel issues may be involved when both individual and contextual variables are considered Multilevel issues may be involved when both individual and contextual variables are considered

130 5. The choice of life domains and situations to be dealt with in the items 5. The choice of life domains and situations to be dealt with in the items in which domains and situation to assess? in which domains and situation to assess?

131 6. Choice of item wording. 6. Choice of item wording. Questionnaires often in second languageQuestionnaires often in second language Use simple languageUse simple language

132 An Empirical Study  Methods (dimensions) of acculturation  (1) One-statement method  (2) Two-statement method  (3) Four-statement method  Domain(s) of acculturation  Private domains (celebrations, child-rearing)  Public domains (language, education, living)

133 Participants  293 Turkish-Dutch adolescents  Gender: 144 female and 149 male  Generation: 15 first and 278 second generations  Age: years, M = (SD = 1.69)  Education: Secondary School Instrument and procedure  (1) 15 items on 15 domains (7 private and 8 public)  (2) 30 items on 15 domains (7 private and 8 public)  (3) 36 items on 9 domains (5 private and 4 public)

134 MEASUREMENTMEASUREMENT ACCULTURATIONACCULTURATION 134

135 Summary of Results  Measurement methods of acculturation  One- and two-statement methods: no significant influences of measurement on outcome  One- and two-statement methods: no significant influences of measurement on outcome  Four-statement method: the largest influence on outcome  Four-statement method: the largest influence on outcome  Domain specificity  Distinct but interrelated positive relationship between private and public domains  Distinct but interrelated positive relationship between private and public domains


Download ppt "Quantitative Resilience Research across Cultures and Contexts Fons J. R. van de Vijver."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google