21-Mertens -45638:21-Mertens -45638 6/3/2008 6:34 PM Page 323 21 ETHICAL ISSUES IN CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY 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 cultures. Cross-cultural psychology is a research method, a statement of scientific philosophy, 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-cultural studies, 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 psychologists: 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 collection 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 culture. 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 stereotypes 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 self is characterized by com- years (Jacoby, Glauberman, & Herrnstein, pliance, nurturance, interdependence, 1995; Jensen, 1969). Resear chers, 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 selves are characterized by compliance, nur- of cross-cultural psychological research. turance, interdependence, and inhibited These studies are methodologically quasi- hedonism;