Search results

True experiments cannot be conducted in cross cultural research because it is impossible to assign participants to different cultures randomly. Cross cultural studies are therefore regarded as quasi-experimental research, and threats that jeopardize the validity of causal inferences in cross cultural research are reviewed. Borrowing from evolutionary biology and epidemiology, the consilience approach is advocated for strengthening the validity of cross cultural causal inferences. This approach holds that causal inferences in cross cultural research are most convincing when supported by diverse evidence based on a sound theoretical basis, multiple sources of data, different research methods, and explicit refutation of alternative interpretations. Three broad strategies for strengthening cross cultural causal inferences are proposed under the consilience framework, including the systematic contrast of cultural groups, the inclusion of covariates to rule out alternative explanations, and the use of multiple research methods, such as cross cultural experimentation. Future developments of cross cultural research methods are discussed.

With the increasing interest in cross-cultural research, there is a growing need for standard and validated practices for translating psychological instruments. Developing a psychologically acceptable instrument for another cultural group almost always requires more effort than a literal translation, which all too often is the common practice. The adequacy of translations can be threatened by various sources of bias. Three types of bias are distinguished in this paper: (1) construct bias (related to nonequivalence of constructs across cultural groups), (2) method bias (resulting from instrument administration problems), and (3) item bias (often a result of inadequate translations such as incorrect word choice). Ways in which bias can affect the adequacy of instruments are illustrated and possible remedies are discussed.

Global Perspectives on Well-Being in Immigrant Families stands apart from current edited books by focusing mainly on immigrants coming to countries other than the United States, and on the experiences of children, adolescents, and young adults. Its international panel of experts addresses the complexities of acculturation in individual and family contexts, and explores how key factors such as education, home environment, parenting issues, and discrimination, contribute to optimal or unsuccessful adjustment. Findings on acculturation orientations (culture maintenance and adoption), acculturation outcomes (psychological well-being, social and linguistic adjustment), religiosity, ethnic and racial socialization, parenting practices and attachment, identity management strategies, political and civic engagement among immigrant children and youth are presented. In our conclusions we clarify how cultural adaptation can be studied based on the results of the current volume. Among the highlights included in this informative volume are: Schooling and family processes in Japan. Parent and peer attachment and psychosocial adjustment of Chinese immigrant adolescents in Italy. Contextual influences on subjective well-being of young ethnic minority Russians in Estonia. Culture and adaptation of Black Caribbean youth in the United States. Connectedness and psychological well-being among adolescents in Kenya. Sociolinguistic adjustment in migrant children in Ireland. With its innovative and cutting-edge approaches to theoretical and methodological concerns, Global Perspectives on Well-Being in Immigrant Families offers up-to-date evidence and insights for researchers and practitioners in the fields of developmental psychology, cross-cultural psychology, family studies, gender studies, sociology, social work, and counseling

Abstract. Compared to natives, immigrants have been reported to display either more (migration morbidity) or fewer (immigrant paradox) adjustment problems. We examined these two perspectives using a meta-analysis from 51 studies (N = 224,197), reporting internalizing, externalizing, and academic outcomes among immigrant children and youth in Europe. Overall, migration morbidity was better supported than the immigrant paradox. Migration morbidity was supported for (a) externalizing outcomes in Northern Europe and adolescent samples; (b) academic outcomes for low SES and fewer girls across samples; (c) internalizing outcomes in Western Europe and preadolescent samples. Cultural diversity and long-term residence of immigrants are favorable factors for the paradox in externalizing outcomes, whereas immigrant family reunion was predictive for the paradox in internalizing and academic outcomes. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.

This article aims to present an overview of the literature on return migration. Through combining the perspectives of various disciplines, notably economy, sociology, and psychology, the main theoretical issues, studies and findings in the field of remigration are presented. In this paper, we concentrate on traditional immigrants with a 'pull' incentive (e.g., labor migrants) who migrated mostly for economic or sometimes educational reasons rather than the immigrants who are forced from their own countries and 'pushed' (e.g., political refugees) into a new environment (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). We address the strengths and the weaknesses of the extant models and theories in explaining the causes and the consequences of the remigration experiences of the traditional migrants. Finally, drawing from a study of Turkish return migration from Western Europe, we discuss the contextual conditions such as attitudes of mainstream groups in the remigration country which are salient moderators of the acculturation process and which makes return migration different from migration.

Cross-cultural developmental research faces the daunting task of studying the relationship of development and cultural context. The main argument of this article is that a variety of approaches is needed rather than one single perspective to make progress with this task. We illustrate how qualitative and quantitative research can be seen as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. We present four models, following Cole, that range from simple main effects to dynamic interaction models and argue that the debate about superiority of any one model is counterproductive; when applicable a more simple model is to be preferred. Thereafter a taxonomy of psychological domains is proposed (physiological, perceptual, cognitive, personality, and social aspects) that has a bearing on the choice of model. The final section describes some issues (and pseudoissues) of cross-cultural developmental science, such as the dichotomy between molar and molecular approaches, and the presumed need to maximize the understanding of cultural context in all research.

The aim of this study was to examine similarities and differences in the pattern and extent of support among family members in five cultural groups in the Netherlands (Dutch mainstreamers, Turkish, Moroccan-, Surinamese-, and Antillean-Dutch). Results revealed that the patterns of support were similar in all cultural groups: Provided support was larger than received support, parents provided and received more support than siblings, and emotional support was stronger than functional support. Using multigroup structural equation modeling, it was shown that the associations between family exchange, frequency of contact, and quality of relationship with parents and siblings were identical in all cultural groups. The cultural differences in mean scores were small for family exchange and quality of relationship, and moderate for frequency of contact. The cultural differences were interpreted in an ethnic-hierarchy model according to which family-support characteristics of immigrant groups that are higher in the hierarchy are more similar to those of the Dutch mainstream group.