Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:45:18.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Analytic Considerations in Cross-Cultural Research on Peer Relations

from Part I - Culture and Peer Relationships: Theoretical and Methodological Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2009

By
Noel A. Card  and
Todd D. Little
Edited by
Xinyin Chen ,
Doran C. French  and
Barry H. Schneider
Noel A. Card
Affiliation:
University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Todd D. Little
Affiliation:
University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Xinyin Chen
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Doran C. French
Affiliation:
Illinois Wesleyan University
Barry H. Schneider
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we review analytic strategies for examining various aspects of peer relations across cultures. Specifically, we review techniques of comparing measures across cultural contexts, with an emphasis on means and covariance structures (MACS) analysis. We then describe the comparisons of mean levels, variances, and covariances across cultures using this approach. Next, we describe techniques of examining intercultural perception and interaction using the social relations model, an underutilized approach in studying youths' peer relations. Finally, we briefly discuss some other analytic approaches and offer our view of the state of the art and future directions for analyzing cross-cultural peer relations data.

Comparing Cultures – Measurement

Given that there is little consensus regarding the measurement of group-level status (e.g., peer acceptance and rejection, perceived popularity and rejection, victimization), dyadic relationships of liking (e.g., friendships, romantic relationships) and disliking (e.g., enemies, mutual antipathies), and interpersonal behaviors (e.g., aggression, prosocial behaviors, interpersonal withdrawal) even within cultures predominantly studied by peer relations researchers (i.e., primarily White, English-speaking youths), it is little wonder that measuring these constructs across cultures poses significant challenges. Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to attempt to define these constructs or to offer specific suggestions for how these may be assessed in specific cultures, we wish to remind readers of the importance of this process. No amount of analytic sophistication can remedy problematic operationalization of a construct (though the methods we describe next can evaluate the success of cross-cultural measurement of a construct).

Type
Chapter
Information
Peer Relationships in Cultural Context , pp. 75 - 95
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright, L., Malloy, T. E., Dong, Q., Kenny, D. A., Fang, X., Winquist, L.. (1997). Cross-cultural consensus in personality judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 558–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, C. F. Jr., Horn, E. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1997). A model for triadic relations. Psychological Methods, 2, 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, C. F. Jr., Kenny, D. A., Broome, E. H., Stokes-Zoota, J. J., & Richard, F. D. (2000). Multivariate analysis of triadic relations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 397–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branje, S. J. T., Acken, M. A. G., & Lieshout, C. F. M. (2002). Relational support in families with adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 351–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Card, N. A. (2001). Who aggresses against whom? An examination of aggressors and victims in a school setting. Unpublished master's thesis. St. John's University, Jamaica, NY.Google Scholar
Card, N. A., Hodges, E. V. E., Little, T. D., & Hawley, P. H. (2005). Gender effects in peer nominations for aggression and social status. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 146–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Card, N. A., Isaacs, J., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2000, March). Dynamics of interpersonal aggression in the school context: Who aggresses against whom? Poster presented at the 8th biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Chicago, IL.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coie, J. D., Cillessen, A. H. N., Dodge, K. A., Hubbard, J. A., Schwartz, D., Lemerise, E. A.. (1999). It takes two to fight: A test of relational factors and a method of assessing aggressive dyads. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1179–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, W. L. (1994). A structural equation model of dyadic relationships within the family system. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 500–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffen, D., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hubbard, J. A., Dodge, K. A., Cillessen, A. H. N., Coie, J. D., & Schwartz, D. (2001). The dyadic nature of social information processing in boys' reactive and proactive aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 268–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenny, D. A. (1991). A general model of consensus and accuracy in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 98, 155–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford.Google ScholarPubMed
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of nonindependence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. (1994). Enhanced co-orientation among friends: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1024–1033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. J. (1984). The social relations model. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142–182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1982). Network analysis. Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, 07–028. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Krappmann, L. (1996). Amicitia, drujba, shin-yu, philia, freundschaft, friendship: On the cultural diversity of a human relationship. In Bukowski, W. M., Newcomb, A. F., & Hartup, W. W. (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 19–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lashley, B. R., & Bond, C. F. Jr. (1997). Significance testing for round robin data. Psychological Methods, 2, 278–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lashley, B. R., & Kenny, D. A. (1998). Power estimation in social relations analyses. Psychological Methods, 3, 328–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, T. D., Card, N. A., Slegers, D. W., & Ledford, E. C. (in press). Testing direct, mediated, and moderated effects in multiple-groups MACS models. In Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., & Card, N. A. (Eds.), Modeling ecological and contextual effects in longitudinal analyses of human development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Little, T. D., & Slegers, D. W. (in press). Factor Analysis: Multiple groups with means. In Rindskopf, D. (Section Ed.), Encyclopedia of statistic in behavioral sciences. West Sussex, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
Little, T. D., & Slegers, D. W., & Card, N. A. (in press). An alternative method of identifying and scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Malloy, T. E., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The social relations model: An integrative method for personality research. Journal of Personality, 54, 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malloy, T. E., Sugarman, D. B., Montvilo, R. K., & Ben-Zeev, T. (1995). Children's interpersonal perceptions: A social relations analysis of perceiver and target effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 418–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malloy, T. E., Yarlas, A., Montvilo, R. K., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). Agreement and accuracy in children's interpersonal perceptions: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 692–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McArdle, J. J., & Epstein, D. (1987). Latent growth curves within developmental structural equation models. Child Development, 58, 110–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millsap, R. E., & Kwok, O. M. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological Methods, 9, 93–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthén, B. O. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In Marcoulides, G. A. & Shumacker, R. E. (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 1–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semiparametric, group-based approach. Psychological Methods, 4, 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Analyzing developmental trajectories of distinct but related behaviors: A group-based method. Psychological Methods, 6, 18–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novy, D. M., Stanley, M. A., Averill, P., & Daza, P. (2001). Psychometric comparability of English- and Spanish-language measures of anxiety and related affective symptoms. Psychological Assessment, 13, 347–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, H. S., & Lollis, S. P. (1989). A social relations analysis of toddler peer relations. Child Development, 60, 1082–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarpati, S., Malloy, T. E., & Fleming, R. (1996). Interpersonal perception of skill efficacy and behavioral control of adolescents with learning disabilities: A social relations approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, D., Chang, L., & Farver, J. M. (2001). Correlates of victimization in Chinese children's peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 37, 520–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., Liefooghe, A. P. D., Almeida, A., Araki, H.. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×