sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cultural psychology

21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 323

21

ETHICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL

 David Matsumoto and Caroline Anne Leong Jones

ross-cultural psychology is the branch of psychology that attempts Cto test the boundaries of knowledge about human behavior by comparing it in two or more . Cross-cultural psychology is a research method, a statement of scientific , and an attitude that blends inquisitive critical thinking with curiosity and interest in cul- ture. As such, cross-cultural psychology can be an exciting and motivat- ing adventure; but it can also be one that presents the researcher with a number of significant ethical issues and practical challenges. In this chapter, we discuss some key ethical issues, dilemmas, and challenges associated with conducting cross-cultural research. We orga- nize our discussion around four sections: the design of cross-, sampling, sensitive topics, and dealing with data and the inter- pretation of findings. Many of the issues and challenges that cross- cultural researchers are confronted with are, in actuality, quite similar to those we are faced with when conducting monocultural research. Many ethical considerations that all researchers must make—regardless of whether they are conducting a multinational study involving 30 countries and 50 languages or a simple study using a convenience sam- ple of American college students—are somewhat universal in nature. Thus, we refer interested readers to the American Psychological Association’s current guidelines on Principle Ethics (www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html# general), which outlines five ethical principles for the conduct of

◆ 323 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 324

324–––◆–––Ethical Issues in Research Practice

: beneficence and nonmalefi- limitations related to interpretations from cence, fidelity and responsibility, integrity, cross-cultural comparisons. justice, and respect for people’s rights and dignity. Moreover, these issues are discussed in depth elsewhere in this volume (Chapter 8, POTENTIAL DANGERS OF this volume). Thus, instead of reiterating CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH many of the same points made elsewhere by others, we strive to discuss here ethical Cross-cultural research is comparative, issues unique to cross-cultural research that that is, it requires the of data from may not be covered elsewhere, all the while members of two or more cultures and the acknowledging that many of the same comparison of their data. One of the most principles and guidelines discussed else- fundamental issues cross-cultural resear- where are applicable here as well. As there chers face, therefore, concerns their opera- are only very few resources on this topic, tionalization of . A perusal of the we consider our work a living document, literature would show very quickly that the start and definitely not the end of a there is a great diversity in these opera- dialogue, on this issue. tionalizations among researchers. Many, for instance, operationalize culture by country; others use race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ♦ Ethical Issues in the Design or disabilities to operationalize culture. of Cross-Cultural Research Researchers should be aware that their choice of operationalization of culture in comparative research may have important As with all properly structured and inter- consequences, and may be associated with nally reliable research, issues related to possible ethical dilemmas. For example, design are fundamental and must be con- when making decisions concerning how to sidered before contact is initiated with operationalize cultural groups, researchers human participants and data are collected. often believe that differences exist between One of the biggest ethical dilemmas facing them (which is why they are conducting the cross-cultural researchers today is the study in the first place), and conduct their potential for the findings from their studies studies to demonstrate that those differ- to be used to vindicate powerful ences actually do exist. Of course, one of about cultural groups. In our view, vindica- the major goals of cross-cultural compari- tion is quite different from testing the accu- son is to examine whether or not such racy of stereotypes. The latter involves differences exist so that the boundaries of researchers’ conscious knowledge of stereo- knowledge can be tested and elucidated. types and their efforts to test their validity One consequence of this process, however, and boundaries; presumably such conscious is those very differences that are docu- knowledge would also inform researchers mented can be used to help perpetuate of the need to be aware of their potential stereotypes of differences by consumers of influence on the process of research. that research. It is fairly easy, for example, Vindication refers to researchers’ ignorance to take research findings documenting of such stereotypes, and thus their potential differences between Americans and South lack of awareness of how these stereotypes Koreans, or European Americans and may affect their decisions about research African Americans, and to make statements unconsciously. Thus, it is incumbent on that overgeneralize those findings to all researchers to understand how this can be members of those groups, essentially the case, and to use research designs that pigeonholing individuals into the social cat- can minimize this possibility. We begin an egories and applying those findings to exploration of these issues by discussing the them. That is, cross-cultural research (or 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 325

Ethical Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology–––◆–––325

more precisely, the incorrect application affect represents a moral distinction and is and interpretation of cross-cultural research) socially desirable; (f) the Japanese underes- can be used to ignore the large degree of timate their own virtues; and (g) the individual differences that exist in human Japanese avoid behaving assertively. Based behavior, and cross-cultural researchers need on this simple, two-country comparison, to be aware of this potential when designing however, it is easy to generate such inter- their studies. pretations, and for them to be used to jus- For instance, Iwata and Higuchi (2000) tify stereotypes of cultural differences that compared Japanese and Americans using may not be true (Matsumoto, 2002). the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) The findings from cross-cultural com- and reported that Japanese were less likely parisons can also be used in a negative way to report positive feelings, and more likely to oppress members of certain groups. If we to report higher state and trait anxiety, than conducted a study about cognitive ability Americans. They wrote, and found significant differences in test scores for Sunni and Shiite populations— In traditional Japan, a typical collectivis- what would the implications of our findings tic society, individual psychological well- be? Is it possible that we would add to ethno- being is subordinate to the well-being of centric and/or stereotypic beliefs? Certainly, the group; that is, maintenance of social similar findings concerning African harmony is one of the most important American differences in IQ have spurred a values (Iwata et al., 1994). The healthy great debate on such issues in the past 40 collectivist is characterized by com- years (Jacoby, Glauberman, & Herrnstein, pliance, nurturance, interdependence, 1995; Jensen, 1969). Researchers, thus, and inhibited hedonism (P. J. Watson, need to be aware that findings could be Sherbak, & Morris, 1998). The inhibi- used in these ways and have the obligation tion of positive affect seems to represent of taking active steps to avoid misuse of a moral distinction and reflect socially their findings. This starts with the tempered desirable behavior in Japan (Iwata et al., and nuanced interpretation of their findings 1995). For this reason, the Japanese are in their own writings, incorporating infor- taught from childhood to understate mation not only about between- but also their own virtues and avoid behaving about within-group differences in their data assertively (Iwata et al., 1994). Because (e.g., through the use of appropriate effects of this socialization, the Japanese seem size statistics and interpreting data in less likely to generate positive feelings relation to these statistics) (Matsumoto, and more likely to inhibit the expression Grissom, & Dinnel, 2001; Matsumoto, of positive feelings [italics added]. (Iwata Kim, Grissom, & Dinnel, in press). This & Higuchi, 2000, p. 58) obligation also extends to correcting misi- nterpretations of one’s findings by other Unfortunately, there are many assump- researchers who cite one’s research. tions that underlie this interpretation of the data, none of which were empirically linked to the differences. These include the ideas LIMITATIONS OF CROSS- that (a) Japan is a collectivistic society; CULTURAL COMPARISONS (b) individual psychological well-being is subordinate to the well-being of the group; Cross-cultural comparisons that docu- (c) maintenance of social harmony is one of ment the existence of differences between the most important values; (d) Japanese groups constitute the core of the majority are characterized by compliance, nur- of cross-cultural . turance, interdependence, and inhibited These studies are methodologically quasi- hedonism; (e) the inhibition of positive experimental in which cultural group is the 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 326

326–––◆–––Ethical Issues in Research Practice

independent variable and psychological assumptions that underlie their interpreta- variables are dependent variables. As men- tions of the findings were actually measured tioned above, most often the cultural groups and empirically linked to their findings. Part are national groups (i.e., countries), although of this limitation starts with the recognition ethnic, language, and racial groupings have that the differences researchers observe in also been studied. Also, as mentioned above, cross-national, racial, or ethnic group com- they are important because they test the parisons are “country,” “racial,” or “ethnic boundaries of the traditional American group” differences rather than “cultural” monocultural research of the past. differences per se. That is, country, race, and One of the limitations of these types of ethnicity are not culture. And we believe comparisons, however, is that they do not that interpretations of differences from allow for empirically justified interpreta- cross-country, racial, or ethnic group com- tions about the source of group differences. parisons without an incorporation of cul- When group differences have been found, ture are doomed to be based on stereotypes, researchers have typically concluded that in which country, racial, or ethnic group dif- those differences have a cultural, racial, or ferences are merely interpreted to have ethnic source, when in fact the mere docu- occurred “because of” some kind of stereo- mentation of between-group differences typic differences between the groups. This is does not justify such interpretations. There unfortunate, because one of the goals of are many ways in which two or more coun- such research should be the elucidation of tries, ethnic groups, or racial groups may those stereotypes—where they are true, differ. Some of these ways are cultural, and where they are not, and their limitations in some are not. The problem in inferences understanding human behavior. Stereotypes occurs when researchers attribute the source are not inherently bad; but when cultures of group differences to culture without are reduced to stereotypes and these stereo- being empirically justified in doing so. And types are inflexibly used as a basis to inter- even if the source of observed differences is pret group differences without empirical indeed culture, it is not exactly clear what justification, this is clearly an extremely lim- cultural variables produce the differences ited way of doing research and understand- and why. Campbell (1961) referred to this ing the relationship between culture and type of error of interpretation in inference psychological processes. Yet the way we as the ecological fallacy, and in the case of do cross-cultural research may, in fact, be cross-cultural studies, this is known as the facilitating these very limited ways. cultural fallacy—the inference that something ‘‘cultural’’ about the groups DEFINING CULTURE being compared produced the observed dif- ferences when there is no empirical justifica- One of the reasons why stereotypic inter- tion for this inference (Matsumoto & Yoo, pretations of the findings from cross- 2006). This limitation exists partly because cultural research are easy is because of the of the ways cultures are sampled (country, limitations inherent in the ways in which ethnic, or racial groups) and partly because cross-cultural researchers operationalize many cross-cultural studies involve compar- culture. As mentioned above, researchers isons of only two or a small handful of typically operationalize culture according groups. The groupings used, however, are to nationality, race, ethnicity, or some other not necessarily cultural. The resulting cul- social categories. These social groups may tural attribution fallacy does, undoubtedly, indeed be associated with cultural differ- lead to findings that can be considered ences, but they beg the question of exactly stereotypical. what is culture in the first place. For example, in the Iwata and Higuchi In our work, we define culture as a (2000) studies described above, none of the unique and system 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 327

Ethical Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology–––◆–––327

that is shared by a group and transmitted performance, to culture does not shed across generations, and that allows the much light on the nature of these differ- group to meet basic needs of survival, pur- ences. It is one of the main tasks of cross- sue happiness and well-being, and derive cultural psychology to peel off cross- meaning from life (Matsumoto, 2007; cultural differences, i.e., to explain these Matsumoto & Juang, 2007). This defini- differences in terms of specific antecedent tion is important because it allows us to go variables, until in the end they have beyond the mere documentation of differ- disappeared and with them the variable ences between countries, racial or ethnic culture. In our approach culture is taken groups, and other social categories, and to as a concept without a core. From a search for the differences in the meaning methodological point of view, culture and information systems of these groups can be considered as an immense of that contribute to the observed differences. often loosely interrelated independent In this way, research can be designed to iso- variables. (p. 22) late the source of country, racial, or ethnic group differences in cultural variables, thus When measured on the individual reducing the chance that such findings be level, researchers then examine the degree used to perpetuate stereotypes. In contem- to which the context variables statisti- porary cross-cultural psychology, these are cally account for the differences in the known as unpackaging studies. comparison, typically by mediation or covariance analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, UNPACKAGING STUDIES West, & Sheets, 2002). If they do, then resear chers are empirically justified in Unpackaging studies are extensions of claiming that that specific aspect of culture, basic cross-cultural comparisons but that that is that context variable, was linked include the measurement of a variable to the differences observed. If they do that assesses the active cultural ingredients not, then researchers know that that that are thought to produce the differences specific context variable did not produce on the variable(s) being compared across the observed differences. In either case, cultures. That is, in unpackaging studies, researchers are empirically justified in mak- culture as an unspecified variable is ing claims about which aspects of culture replaced by more specific variables to truly are related to the variables of interest. explain cultural differences. These variables A number of different types of variables are called context variables and should be can be used as context variables, and actually measured in the study to examine unpackaging studies can be conducted in a the degree to which they account for cul- number of different ways. In one of the first tural differences. The underlying thought to unpackaging studies (Singelis, Bond, these studies is that cultures are like onions, Sharkey, & Lai, 1999), for example, country where layer after layer needs to be peeled differences in self-construals unpacked off until nothing is left. Poortinga, Van de country differences in embarrassability; Vijver, Joe, and van de Koppel (1987) that is, because self-construals can be con- expressed the view this way: sidered a cultural variable, the findings allowed for an interpretation that group In our approach culture is a summary differences in embarrassability was empiri- label, a catchword for all kinds of behav- cally linked to cultural differences in self- ior differences between cultural groups, construals. There are other research designs but within itself, of virtually no that allow for the empirical linking of the explanatory . Ascribing intergroup active cultural ingredients that produce differences in behavior, e.g., in test group differences with those differences, 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 328

328–––◆–––Ethical Issues in Research Practice

such as experiments and multilevel analy- in this example, a soldier in the Army). It is ses. One important type of research in this reasonable that most soldiers jumping out genre, for instance, is studies that prime of a plane for the first time are experiencing participants to behave in individualistic or some form of fear that is similar to a fear of collectivistic ways (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & death—although the ethical difference is that Benet-Martinez, 2000), and show differ- they are jumping out of the plane by choice ences in the same individuals primed differ- and not by coercion. ently. Space limitations prohibit us from describing all these more fully here; inter- ested readers are referred to other sources ECOLOGICAL- VERSUS for detailed accounts of them (Matsumoto INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL ANALYSES & Yoo, 2006; Van de Vijver & Matsumoto, in press). Although most hypothesis-testing cross- cultural research uses individual partici- pants as the unit of analysis, ecological-level ETHICAL ISSUES REGARDING studies use countries or cultures as the unit THEORIES AND HYPOTHESES of analysis. Data may be obtained on the TO BE TESTED individual level, but subsequently aggre- gated into averages or overall scores for One issue that cross-cultural researchers each culture. These new summaries or aver- need to face is the question of whether or ages are then used as data points for each not their research question is worthy culture (Matsumoto & Juang, 2007). One enough of being studied in the first place. of the ethical issues that arises when inter- Just because a question can be asked does preting the results from ecological-level not necessarily mean that it should be studies is related to the fact that relation- asked. An excellent example of this can be ships among variables measured at one found in the notorious Tuskegee experi- level do not necessarily translate to the ment on the disease course of untreated same relationships at another level. A posi- syphilis. Surely medical science could have tive correlation based on ecological-level done without the information gained in data can be positive, negative, or zero when that “investigation” (especially since a cure individual-level data are analyzed. The clas- for the disease was discovered before the sic work in this field is Robinson’s (1950), completion of the study), not to mention who demonstrated that, even though a the ethical misconduct of having a vulnera- small, positive correlation (0.118) existed ble population unwittingly involved in the between foreign birth and illiteracy when experiment. It is also necessary to consider individual-level data were analyzed; strong if the suffering involved is worth the poten- negative correlations were obtained when tial knowledge. For example, even though data were aggregated across individuals by the U.S. Army might be curious to under- region (−0.619) or state (−0.526). Similar stand how their soldiers react to feelings types of differences in findings have been regarding their own mortality by designing obtained in studies of the relationship a study that actually evokes these intense between socioeconomic status and child- in human participants—they births (Entwisle & Mason, 1985), attach- might have to leave this question unanswered. ment and acting out behaviors (Bond, The diligent researcher, however, will most 2004), person and behavior likely try to operationalize their variable of intention (Bond & Forgas, 1984), and cul- interest. For example, the Army could con- tural values, social beliefs, and managerial sider using the experience of a soldier’s first influence strategies (Fu et al., 2004). parachute jump, or some other naturally One of our recent studies highlights occurring experience (if one happens to be, the major potential difference between 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 329

Ethical Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology–––◆–––329

ecological- and individual-level correla- are the criteria that we have decided to use tions. On the individual level, for instance, to define what our “American” sample is? the effects of emotional suppression on What does it mean to be enculturated as an and adjustment is well docu- “American”? What is “American” culture? mented (Butler et al., 2003; Gross & John, These are all issues that we, as cross- 2003; Gross & Levenson, 1993); individu- cultural researchers, must pay special atten- als who are more expressive are generally tion to when conducting our research. They better adjusted than those who suppress are potentially problematic, and related to their emotions. On the cultural level, how- ethics, because of the assumption of homo- ever, suppression is not only correlated with geneity among group members, researchers, less positive adjustment and well-being; but and their methods. Statistics testing group is also negatively correlated with negative differences, for instance, do not care about adjustment indices such as country-level the specific composition of those groups; indices of depression and anxiety; smoking, that is a methodological issue that only alcohol, and drug abuse; and crime rates. researchers can control. Yet the findings Thus, the ecological-level relationship will be applied as if they are true for those between suppression and negative adjust- who comprise the groups being tested and ment is exactly the opposite of that which is have the potential to perpetuate stereotypic found on the individual level, highlighting impressions and interpretations or create the fact that researchers cannot make infer- them (Matsumoto & Juang, 2007). ences about individual-level processes from Issues concerning sampling adequacy and cultural-level data. sampling equivalence are discussed in detail elsewhere (Matsumoto & Juang, in press; Van de Vijver & Matsumoto, in press). In ♦ Issues Regarding Sampling, this section, we will focus predominantly on Recruitment, and two issues of sampling that may need special ethical consideration: informed consent and participant recruitment. Sampling lies at the core of research involving human subjects—and can most often be the issue from which INFORMED CONSENT stems all sorts of ethical considerations. How do we know, in the case of sampling, In the United States, it is impossible to that the participants who represent our tar- conduct research involving human partici- get cultures of interest are a “good” repre- pants without first receiving approval sentation of that culture? In the most basic from an institutional review board (IRB), cross-cultural studies, data are collected and most IRB guidelines require that from a sample of people from one culture researchers obtain consent from the partici- and then compared with the data obtained pants before collecting data. These proce- from a sample of people from another dures, however, do not exist in most culture (or known values from another countries outside the United States. In fact, culture). Let’s say, we decided to run a in most places outside the United States, not cross-cultural study that used the scores of only is submitting a research proposal for 100 Americans. What if all the Americans review unnecessary but obtaining consent in our sample were from the same small from human participants is unnecessary, town in the middle of South Dakota? What as well. This raises ethical dilemmas for if they were all naturalized citizens living in researchers: Do we obtain consent from par- San Francisco? What if they all had the ticipants in cultures in which it is not neces- same ethnic background or all came from sary to obtain consent, or even frowned upper-class, dual-income families? What upon? Will all participants understand the 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 330

330–––◆–––Ethical Issues in Research Practice

concept of “consent” in the same way? asking for their participation. Participation What does “consent” mean in different cul- in research is a well-known process to many tures and who is authorized to give and students in many universities in the United obtain “consent”? Furthermore, if we do States. obtain consent from our participants, how In other countries and cultures, however, do we obtain it? Many participants in many this is not necessarily the case. Many coun- cultures will likely view consent documents tries do not have an undergraduate partici- with skepticism or fear. Will they under- pant pool as we do in the United States. stand such a process and feel comfortable Thus, different procedures are often about giving consent? required to recruit participants. In many Regardless of whether obtaining consent instances, course instructors request that is necessary or not, we believe that their students participate. In many situa- researchers should always strive to ensure tions, however, students may feel compelled that (a) informed consent is obtained and to participate in a study that they would understood by the participant, (b) invasion otherwise not choose of their own volition, of privacy is minimized, and (c) consent will because of the perceived status of the resear- be obtained only in a manner that mini- cher or possible ramifications for noncom- mizes coercion or undue influence. How pliance to the requesting instructor. This can this process be done in a culturally compelling force may border on coercion or competent manner? undue influence and presents an ethical In our experience, many of the same dilemma. We believe that researchers should consent procedures can be used around the avoid any recruitment procedures that world, if delivered in a skilful and culturally involve actual or perceived coercion to competent manner by the research team. participate in the studies. This manner involves the truthful and honest description of the procedures of the study, its risks and benefits, combined with ♦ Sensitive Topics a genuine interest in the participant and his/her welfare. If written consent is required, forms need to be translated in a When conducting cross-cultural research, competent and culturally appropriate it’s important to be aware of the fact that manner. Involving cultural informants as there are some topics and issues that are collaborators or experimenters can help sensitive to study and raise interesting ethi- ensure that researchers are making the most cal problems for researchers. We mention diligent of efforts in this difficult ethical three of them briefly here, to raise aware- area of research. ness of them: sex and sexuality, human rights issues, and deception.

RECRUITMENT SEX AND SEXUALITY In the United States, participants in most psychology studies are recruited from an The United States and much of Western undergraduate psychology participant pool and Northern Europe are cultures in which of students, mostly from introductory sex and sexuality issues can be discussed psychology classes, who view descriptions relatively openly and freely in everyday of studies and sign up for them voluntarily discourse. For that reason, conducting and of their free will. In many cases, this research on sex and sexuality is relatively process is administered by software that much easier in those cultures. In many can be accessed by any computer connected other cultures of the world, however, these to the Internet, in which case participants topics are taboo, especially among youth or have minimal intervention by anyone else women. Thus, researchers must exercise 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 331

Ethical Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology–––◆–––331

caution when conducting research on these attitudes toward things such as drugs, in topics in cultures in which they are taboo. our protocols. For example, in some cultures of the world, homosexuality is a severe taboo, punished in some societies by social isola- HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES tion, physical punishment, and in some cases, even death. A researcher studying Cultures differ considerably on many homosexuality in such cultures may be practices and issues that U.S. Americans subject to the same kinds of repercussions, often find difficult to understand and even which strongly prohibits the generation of offensive. These include abortion attitudes much useful research information about and practices, circumcision or female genital homosexuality in those cultures. Additionally, mutilation, and the punishment of women it would be very difficult for individuals to accused of premarital sex or extramarital volunteer to participate in such studies, for affairs. (Conversely, many cultures find fear of their safety and lives. In such cul- many U.S. attitudes and practices offensive, tures, there may be the added anxiety that too.) Clearly, these are important social the research project itself is part of an orga- issues that are worthy of study and docu- nized activity, either by activist groups or mentation; yet, like with issues concerning government, to identify homosexual indi- sex and sexuality, they may be taboo and viduals. Such concerns exist not only for difficult, if not impossible, to study in other people who live in those cultures but also cultures, and even in the United States. for individuals who emigrate to other coun- Another human rights issue to consider tries; they still may fear for their lives. Thus, is the track record of countries—in which it may be difficult to conduct such a study researchers wish to work—with regard to on homosexual immigrants in the United human rights issues. Many countries in the States for the same reasons. We have world have been accused in the past and conducted such studies (Mireshghi & present of human rights violations, and Matsumoto, 2006), and they raise interest- how these have been and are dealt with ing and important questions concerning may, in some cases, form part of an impor- recruitment and consent, as described above. tant context within which research in those Even if issues concerning sex and sexual- countries may occur. It behooves resear- ity are not a direct focus of the study, they chers to know of these issues, and to gauge may be indirectly related because of ques- the degree to which they may affect the tions concerning these issues on standard research and findings, and whether it is personality questionnaires. For example, wise to do the research in the first place. two items on the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS), a scale designed to assess the potential to adjust to a multicul- DECEPTION tural environment (Matsumoto, Yoo, & LeRoux, 2007), are “sex education is a Deception is used in many studies in the good thing” and “when a man is with a United States, and when it is used, it must woman he is usually thinking of sex.” pass muster at the level of the IRB so that Despite the fact that these, and many other, its use does not introduce undue risks to the items are designed to indirectly tap person- participants, and participants are fully ality constructs and are imbedded within debriefed about it at the end and give their literally tens or hundreds of other items, informed consent to use the data. That is, they may be taboo in other cultures. We there are and important checks on have conducted studies in which cultural the use of deception in the United States. informants have reviewed the items and Because IRBs do not exist in many other recommended or required deletion of a countries, however, such checks therefore number of these, and those that ask about do not exist; there are, however, other ways 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 332

332–––◆–––Ethical Issues in Research Practice

in which such checks are done. Thus, it statistics that test for group differences, becomes easier to conduct research that such as analysis of variance, chi-square, involves deception. Such ease, however, t tests, and the like. The major problem comes with the greater obligation to exer- with these types of statistics is that they cise caution. We do not believe that all only test for whether group means are dif- research involving deception should be out- ferent from each other but not the degree to right banned in countries with no IRB pro- which they are different, nor how individu- cedure; but we do believe that such research als in those groups are different from each needs to be conducted with additional care other. Thus, relying solely on such statistical and caution, by engaging cultural infor- procedures to analyze data makes it easy mants as collaborators who can gauge the for researchers and consumers of research necessity of the deception, and by enacting to draw rather stereotypical interpretations procedures that ensure the full debriefing of of the group differences, because all the sta- the participants and obtaining of consent to tistics demonstrate whether or not group preserve individual participant integrity. differences exist. Statistically significant group differences in means, however, may or may not be METHODS, SENSITIVITY, practically significant in terms of under- OR ETHICS? standing differences among people in those groups. To make such interpretations con- The topics we raise in this section blend cerning practical meaningfulness, resear- together issues concerning methodology, cul- chers who deal with quantitative data need tural sensitivity, and ethics. Clearly, studying to engage with a class of statistics known as sensitive topics in a culturally insensitive effect size statistics. There are, in fact, many manner is likely to yield invalid results, thus different types of effect size statistics, all of posing a methodological dilemma. But cul- which are computed differently, serve a dif- tural insensitivity in methodology also has ferent purpose, and tell researchers a differ- the potential to treat participants and cul- ent thing about the group differences. Space tures in a disrespectful manner, and this restrictions prevent us from discussing these clearly is an ethical problem at the same in detail; interested readers are referred to time. To be sure, we do not argue for a ban other sources for detailed accounts of them on research on sensitive topics. We do, how- (Grissom & Kim, 2005; Matsumoto et al., ever, suggest that such research must be 2001; Matsumoto, Kim et al., in press). undertaken with care, precision, and sensi- Our point here is that researchers who deal tivity for the topics studied vis-à-vis the cul- with quantitative data should make use of tures in question. Involving cultural experts this class of statistics to make more accu- as collaborators in the research, recruiting rate and less stereotypic interpretations participants who participate without coer- of the differences observed. Researchers cion with full informed consent, and inter- should also consider using statistics related preting findings in a culturally relevant to dispersion more comprehensively in their manner are steps by which researchers can reports and interpretations of the data (see make in studying difficult topics. Chapter 24, this volume).

♦ Dealing With Data and the Interpretation of Findings CULTURAL BIASES IN INTERPRETATIONS

ANALYZING DATA Just as culture can bias formulation of the research questions in a cross-cultural When analyzing cross-cultural data, study, it can also bias the ways researchers researchers typically rely on inferential interpret their findings. Most researchers 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 333

Ethical Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology–––◆–––333

will inevitably interpret the data they interpretations without giving them a sec- obtain through their own cultural filters, ond thought—and without the slightest and these biases can affect their interpreta- hint of malicious intent—only because we tions to varying degrees. For example, if the are so accustomed to seeing the world in a mean response for Americans on a rating certain way. As consumers of research, we scale is 6.0 and the mean for Hong Kong may agree with such interpretations—when Chinese is 4.0, one interpretation is that the they agree with the ways we have learned Americans simply scored higher on the to understand and view the world—and scale. Another interpretation may be that we will often do so unconsciously and the Chinese are suppressing their responses. automatically. This type of interpretation is common, especially in research with Asian samples. But how do we know the Chinese are sup- CULTURAL INFORMANTS pressing their responses? What if it is the Americans who are exaggerating their As we have mentioned throughout this responses? What if the Chinese mean chapter, the involvement of cultural infor- response of 4.0 is actually the more “cor- mants, at least on the level of advisers and rect” one and the American one is the one at best on the level of collaborators, is a that is off? What if we surveyed the rest of must in cross-cultural research. While we the world and found that the overall mean have listed this section here toward the was 3.0, suggesting that both the Chinese end of this chapter, we strongly believe that and the Americans inflated their ratings? In these cultural informants/collaborators other words, the interpretation that the should be engaged from the very beginning Chinese are suppressing their responses is of any study, providing needed advice and based on an implicit assumption that the guidance about whether or not to conduct American data are “correct.” One of us has the study in the first place, the appropriate- made this sort of ethnocentric interpreta- ness of the theory and hypotheses to be tion of research findings in a study involv- tested, and the adequacy and appropriate- ing American and Japanese judgments ness of the research design. of the intensity of facial expressions of The involvement of cultural informants , without really giving much con- can help avoid in interpreting sideration to other possibilities (Matsumoto results, such as those described immediately & Ekman, 1989). In later research above. We strongly encourage researchers (Matsumoto, Kasri, & Kooken, 1999), we to seek out such informant/collaborators at were able to show that, in fact, the the earliest stages of their studies, and to Americans exaggerated their intensity rat- work collaboratively with them throughout ings of faces, relative to inferences about the research process. Most scientific organi- subjective experience of the posers—the zations such as the American Psychological Japanese did not suppress. Association have guidelines or criteria for Anytime researchers make a value judg- authorship, and we encourage researchers ment or interpretation of a finding, it is to ensure that informants contribute their always possible that this interpretation is share of intellectual material to the research bound by a cultural bias. Interpretations of to gain authorship. good or bad, right or wrong, suppressing or exaggerating, important or not important are all value interpretations that may be CONFIDENTIALITY made in a cross-cultural study. These inter- pretations may reflect the value orientations In the United States, we have many rules, of the researchers as much as they do the regulations, and guidelines concerning the cultures of the samples included in the need to maintain confidentiality of any data study. As researchers, we may make those sources. Such rules do not exist in many 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 334

334–––◆–––Ethical Issues in Research Practice

other countries, and many other collabora- be tempered by positive learning interaction tors or cultural informants may not be with our cultural expert and a research of aware of such need or procedures. We customs and norms on our own. At every believe that even though a country may not phase of research, including the consent have such rules or regulations that data process, sensitivity and should be need to be kept confidential, with access given to the cultural ethos and eidos of the only to the research team. Many partici- community. pants in many other countries may worry about who has access to their data, espe- cially if they have made statements about ♦ Conclusion issues that are politically, socially, or morally sensitive in their cultures. Some- times data have to be smuggled out of a In this chapter, we have raised many ethical country because of this worry (e.g., Scherer issues concerning cross-cultural psycholog- & Wallbott, 1994). Clearly, participants in ical research with regard to design, sam- research should be free of such anxiety con- pling, sensitive issues, and dealing with cerning the use of their data when they pro- data. Undoubtedly, we have raised more vide it and afterward, researchers should questions than provided answers, and this take extra precautions to ensure that this is may be inevitable, because in many cases indeed the case. the answers for many of the issues raised reside in local cultural communities, not in a one-size-fits-all approach to the ethical IMPACT OF RESEARCH conduct of research in different cultures. ON THE COMMUNITY Our purpose has been first and foremost to raise awareness of the sometimes very dif- A focus on the ecology of lives approach ficult issues that face cross-cultural resear - and designing research and interventions chers. As mentioned in the introduction, at the community level suggest a long-term we sincerely hope that the issues raised commitment to the locale as part of the here serve as the start, not end, of a dia- research process. “One-shot” or “safari” logue concerning ethics in cross-cultural approaches to community-based research research. should be discouraged, including the low probability that such an approach would leave a positive residual after the project ends ♦ References or the grant money runs out. Researchers doing work in other countries and cul- tures should be attuned to how research Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mod- can make positive impacts on the lives of erator-mediator variable distinction in social the community, because many other coun- psychological research: Conceptual, strate- tries do not have the reciprocal cycle of gic, and statistical considerations. Journal of access  benefit that we do in the United Personality and , 51(6), States. 1173–1882. We must also take heed to avoid actions, Bond, M. H. (2004). Culture and aggression: procedures, interactive styles, and so on From context to coercion. Personality and that violate local customs and understand- Social Psychology Review, 8, 62–78. ings of the community. Our goals are for Bond, M. H., & Forgas, J. P. (1984). Linking understanding and learning to occur—not person perception to behavior intention unnecessary cultural faux pas as a result of across cultures: The role of cultural collec- our own lack of education of a culture out- tivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, side our own. Incidences of this nature can 15, 337–352. 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 335

Ethical Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology–––◆–––335

Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wlhelm, F. H., Smith, MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A (2003). The social consequences of expres- comparison of methods to test mediation sive suppression. Emotion, 3(1), 48–67. and other intervening variable effects. Campbell, D. T. (1961). The mutual method- Psychological Methods, 7(3), 83–104. ological relevance of anthropology and psy- Matsumoto, D. (2002). The new Japan. chology. In F. L. Hsu (Ed.), Psychological Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. anthropology (pp. 333–352). Homewood, Matsumoto, D. (2007). Culture, context, and IL: Dorsey. behavior. Journal of Personality, 75(6), Entwisle, B., & Mason, W. M. (1985). 1285–1319. Multilevel effects of socioeconomic devel- Matsumoto, D., & Ekman, P. (1989). American- opment and family planning programs on Japanese cultural differences in intensity children ever born. American Journal of ratings of facial expressions of emotion. Sociology, 91(3), 616–649. & Emotion, 13(2), 143–157. Fu, P. P., Kennedy, J., Tata, J., Yuki, G., Bond, Matsumoto, D., Grissom, R., & Dinnel, D. M. H., Peng, et al. (2004). The impact of (2001). Do between-culture differences societal cultural values and individual social really mean that people are different? beliefs on the perceived effectiveness of A look at some measures of cultural effect managerial influence strategies: A meso size. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, approach. Journal of International Business 32(4), 478–490. Studies, 35, 284–305. Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2007). Culture Grissom, R., & Kim, J. J. (2005). Effect sizes for and Psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: research: A broad practical approach. Mahwah, Wadsworth. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Matsumoto, D., Kasri, F., & Kooken, K. (1999). Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual American-Japanese cultural differences in differences in two emotion regulation judgments of expression intensity and sub- processes: Implications for affect, relation- jective experience. & Emotion, ships, and well-being. Journal of Personality 13, 201–218. and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. Matsumoto, D., Kim, J. J., Grissom, R. J., & Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Emotional Dinnel, D. L. (in press). Effect sizes in cross- suppression: Physiology, self-report, and cultural research. In F. J. R. Van de Vijver & expressive behavior. Journal of Personality D. Matsumoto (Eds.), Cross-cultural and Social Psychology, 64(6), 970–986. research methods in psychology. New York: Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet- Oxford University Press. Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: Matsumoto, D., & Yoo, S. H. (2006). Toward a A dynamic constructivist approach to cul- new generation of cross-cultural research. ture and cognition. American , Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 55, 709–720. 234–250. Iwata, N., & Higuchi, H. R. (2000). Responses Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & LeRoux, J. A. of Japanese and American university (2007). Emotion and intercultural commu- students to the STAI items that assess the nication. In H. Kotthoff & H. Spencer- presence or absence of anxiety. Journal of Oatley (Eds.), Handbook of applied Personality Assessment, 74(1), 48–62. linguistics, Vol. 7: Intercultural communi- Jacoby, R., Glauberman, N., & Herrnstein, R. J. cation. (pp. 77–98). Berlin: Mouton de (1995). The bell curve debate: History, docu- Gruyter. ments, opinions (1st ed.). New York: Times Mireshghi, S., & Matsumoto, D. (2006). Books. Cultural attitudes toward homosexuality Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost and their effects on Iranian and American IQ and scholastic achievement? Berkeley, homosexuals. Manuscript submitted for CA. publication. 21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 336

336–––◆–––Ethical Issues in Research Practice

Poortinga, Y. H., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Joe, differential emotion response-patterning. R. C., & van de Koppel, J. M. H. (1987). Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Peeling the onion called culture: A synopsis. In 66(2), 310–328. C. Kagitcibasi (Ed.), Growth and progress in Singelis, T., Bond, M., Sharkey, W. F., & Lai, cross-cultural psychology (pp. 22–34). C. S. Y. (1999). Unpackaging culture’s Berwyn, PA: Swets North America. influence on self-esteem and embarassabil- Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations ity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, and the behavior of individuals. American 30, 315–341. Sociological Review, 15(3), 351–357. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Matsumoto, D. (in press). Scherer, K. R., & Wallbott, H. (1994). Evidence Cross-cultural research methods in psychol- for universality and of ogy. New York: Oxford University Press.