比较文化学与跨文化心理学:比较社会文化与比较个人跨文化心理有何不同

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Michael Minkov, Vivian L. Vignoles, Christian Welzel, Plamen Akaliyski, Michael Harris Bond, Anneli Kaasa, Peter B. Smith
{"title":"比较文化学与跨文化心理学:比较社会文化与比较个人跨文化心理有何不同","authors":"Michael Minkov, Vivian L. Vignoles, Christian Welzel, Plamen Akaliyski, Michael Harris Bond, Anneli Kaasa, Peter B. Smith","doi":"10.1177/00220221231220027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cross-cultural research in social and behavioral sciences has expanded hugely over the past 50 years, but progress is currently hampered by a lack of appreciation of the profoundly differing principles and goals of two distinct traditions. The first is the main variant of cross-cultural psychology (CCP), focusing on how culture shapes individual psychological functioning. The second was pioneered by Hofstede. It studies societal differences, and we name it “comparative culturology” (CC). We explain how these two paradigms differ. CCP is grounded in psychology and typically looks for unobservable individual-level constructs, which supposedly exist independently of their measurement, to provide understanding of individual differences as affected by culture. CC is an interdisciplinary field whose roots and impact span sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, management studies, psychology, and beyond. CC measures cultural dimensions as group-level constructs created by researchers, which are best understood as ecological manifolds: conglomerates of conceptually and statistically associated variables (not necessarily held together by a single underlying factor) that collectively explain national (and other group) differences. Given these paradigmatic distinctions, the two fields need not, and cannot, use the same validation methods. They should co-exist and collaborate based on mutual appreciation of their differences, without attempts by either field to impose its idiosyncrasies on the other.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Culturology and Cross-Cultural Psychology: How Comparing Societal Cultures Differs From Comparing Individuals’ Minds Across Cultures\",\"authors\":\"Michael Minkov, Vivian L. Vignoles, Christian Welzel, Plamen Akaliyski, Michael Harris Bond, Anneli Kaasa, Peter B. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00220221231220027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cross-cultural research in social and behavioral sciences has expanded hugely over the past 50 years, but progress is currently hampered by a lack of appreciation of the profoundly differing principles and goals of two distinct traditions. The first is the main variant of cross-cultural psychology (CCP), focusing on how culture shapes individual psychological functioning. The second was pioneered by Hofstede. It studies societal differences, and we name it “comparative culturology” (CC). We explain how these two paradigms differ. CCP is grounded in psychology and typically looks for unobservable individual-level constructs, which supposedly exist independently of their measurement, to provide understanding of individual differences as affected by culture. CC is an interdisciplinary field whose roots and impact span sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, management studies, psychology, and beyond. CC measures cultural dimensions as group-level constructs created by researchers, which are best understood as ecological manifolds: conglomerates of conceptually and statistically associated variables (not necessarily held together by a single underlying factor) that collectively explain national (and other group) differences. Given these paradigmatic distinctions, the two fields need not, and cannot, use the same validation methods. They should co-exist and collaborate based on mutual appreciation of their differences, without attempts by either field to impose its idiosyncrasies on the other.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221231220027\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221231220027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的 50 年里,社会和行为科学领域的跨文化研究取得了巨大的发展,但由于缺乏对两种截然不同的传统的原则和目标的深刻理解,目前的研究进展受到了阻碍。第一种是跨文化心理学(CCP)的主要变体,侧重于研究文化如何影响个体的心理功能。第二种是霍夫斯泰德首创的。它研究社会差异,我们将其命名为 "比较文化学"(CC)。我们将解释这两种范式的不同之处。CCP 以心理学为基础,通常寻找无法观察到的个体层面的建构物(这些建构物理应独立于其测量而存在),以了解受文化影响的个体差异。文化维度是一个跨学科领域,其根源和影响横跨社会学、人类学、政治学、经济学、管理学、心理学等多个学科。文化维度(CC)将文化维度作为研究人员创建的群体层面的建构物来进行测量,这些建构物最好被理解为生态流形:由概念上和统计上相关的变量(不一定由单一的基本因素维系)组成的集合体,它们共同解释了国家(和其他群体)的差异。鉴于这些范式上的区别,这两个领域不必也不能使用相同的验证方法。它们应在相互理解各自差异的基础上共存与合作,任何一个领域都不应试图将自己的特质强加给另一个领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Culturology and Cross-Cultural Psychology: How Comparing Societal Cultures Differs From Comparing Individuals’ Minds Across Cultures
Cross-cultural research in social and behavioral sciences has expanded hugely over the past 50 years, but progress is currently hampered by a lack of appreciation of the profoundly differing principles and goals of two distinct traditions. The first is the main variant of cross-cultural psychology (CCP), focusing on how culture shapes individual psychological functioning. The second was pioneered by Hofstede. It studies societal differences, and we name it “comparative culturology” (CC). We explain how these two paradigms differ. CCP is grounded in psychology and typically looks for unobservable individual-level constructs, which supposedly exist independently of their measurement, to provide understanding of individual differences as affected by culture. CC is an interdisciplinary field whose roots and impact span sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, management studies, psychology, and beyond. CC measures cultural dimensions as group-level constructs created by researchers, which are best understood as ecological manifolds: conglomerates of conceptually and statistically associated variables (not necessarily held together by a single underlying factor) that collectively explain national (and other group) differences. Given these paradigmatic distinctions, the two fields need not, and cannot, use the same validation methods. They should co-exist and collaborate based on mutual appreciation of their differences, without attempts by either field to impose its idiosyncrasies on the other.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology publishes papers that focus on the interrelationships between culture and psychological processes. Submitted manuscripts may report results from either cross-cultural comparative research or results from other types of research concerning the ways in which culture (and related concepts such as ethnicity) affect the thinking and behavior of individuals as well as how individual thought and behavior define and reflect aspects of culture. Review papers and innovative reformulations of cross-cultural theory will also be considered. Studies reporting data from within a single nation should focus on cross-cultural perspective. Empirical studies must be described in sufficient detail to be potentially replicable.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信