society ( Wan et al., 2007 ). Nonetheless, shared perceptions, even if they are not fully internalized, constitute an
intersubjective reality that impacts behaviors in important ways ( Zou et al., 2009 ). This research trend, if contin-
ued, will deepen our understanding of the reciprocal influence of the intersubjective reality and individual psy-
chology in the society.
Cross-cultural measurement has also made important advances in methodology. Newer versions of established
measures (e.g., VMS) and the newly developed ones (e.g., SAS, T&LS, GCV) tend to be shorter and use a uniform
response format. These changes enable more rigorous evaluation of the psychometric properties of the measures.
In addition, the attention given to cross-cultural measurement equivalence has increased ( Chen, 2008 ).
Furthermore, sophisticated statistical tools are also being developed to model the psychological structure of cul-
tural contents, its change, as well as its within-culture variations ( Tay, Woo, Klafehn, & Chiu, 2010 ).
We also discern a healthy shift to multi-level measurement of cultures. Based on the assumption that group
level phenomena (e.g., culture) cannot be reduced to individual psychology, earlier cross-cultural measures (e.g.,
VSM, SVS) use societies as the unit of analysis. Through analyzing the society means of the value measures,
cross-cultural researchers have made important discoveries on the psychological structure of cultural values. The
newer multilevel measures (e.g., SAS) allow researchers to extend this effort through the use of both individuals
and societies as the unit of analysis. Such multi-level measures invite researchers to assess variations in psycho-
logical processes across cultures andwithin a society. These measures also facilitate cross-level analysis on the
interactions between culture as a collective phenomenon and individual psychology.
In conclusion, impressive conceptual and methodological advances have been made in measuring cultural var-
iations in psychological processes in the past 15 years. The research trends identified in this section, if continued,
will lead to development of new measures and refinement of existing ones that will deepen our understanding of
the interplay of culture and psychology.
References
Ashkanasy, N., Gupta, V., Mayfield, M. S., & Trevor-Roberts, E. (2004). Future orientation. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.
Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 282 /C0342). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Bardi, A., Lee, J. A., Hoffmann-Towfigh, & Soutar, G. (2009). The structure of intraindividual value change. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology ,97, 913/C0929.
Becker, G. (1996). The meta-analysis of factor analyses: an illustration based on the cumulation of correlational matrices. Psychological Methods ,
1, 341/C0353.
Bentler, P. M., & Wu., E. J. C. (1995). EQS for Winders user’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Bierbrauer, G., Meyer, H., & Wolfradt, U. (1994). Measurement of normative and evaluative aspects in individualistic and collectivistic orienta-
tions: The Cultural Orientation Scale (COS). In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C ¸. K a ˘g/C16tc¸/C16ba¸s/C16, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individual and collectiv-
ism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 189 /C0199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Braithwaite, V. A., & Law, H. G. (1985). Structure of human values: testing the adequacy of the Rokeach value survey. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology ,49, 250/C0263.
Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2010). GLOBE practices and values: a case of diminishing marginal utility? Journal of International Business Studies ,41,
1316/C01324.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-
cultural psychology: Theory and method (Vol. 2, pp. 389 /C0444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin ,56,
81/C0105.
Carl, D., Gupta, V., & Javidan, M. (2004). Power distance. In R. J. House, M. Javidan, V. Gupta, P. W. Dorfman, & P. J. Hanges (Eds.), Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 513 /C0563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition
models. Journal of Applied Psychology ,83, 234/C0246.
Chao, M. M., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2011). Epistemic functions of culture. In A. K-y. Leung, C.-y. Chiu, & Y.-y. Hong (Eds.), Cultural processes: A social
psychological perspective (pp. 81 /C095). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural
research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,95, 1005/C01018.
Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Zhang, J., Leung, K., Leong, F., & Huiyeh, K. (2008). Relevance of Openness as a personality dimension in
Chinese culture: aspects of its cultural relevance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology ,39,8 1/C0108.
Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S.-F., Leung, K., Ward, C., & Leong, F. T. L. (2003). The English version of the Chinese Personality Assessment
Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology ,34, 433/C0452.
Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S.-F., & Zhang, J.-X. (2004a). Convergent validity of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory and the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: preliminary findings with a normative sample. Journal of Personality Assessment ,82,9 2/C0103.
Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S.-F., & Zhang, J.-X. (2004b). What is ‘Chinese’ personality? Subgroup differences in the Chinese Personality
Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). Acta Psychologica Sinica ,36, 491/C0499.649 REFERENCES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT