To assess how culture influences the behavior of people, multilevel models are an immediate choice for modeling the relationship at the levels of the individual and culture. The authors propose structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the universality of psychological processes at the individual and culture levels. Specifically, the structural equivalence of the measurement (where the instrument is measuring the same construct across countries) is first tested with meta-analytic SEM. If the measurement is structurally equivalent, cross-level equivalence (where the instrument is measuring similar constructs at different levels) will then be tested with multilevel SEM. A large data set on social axioms with 7,590 university students from 40 cultural groups was used to illustrate the procedures. The results showed that the structural equivalence of the social axioms was well supported at the individual level across 40 cultural groups, whereas the cross-level equivalence was partially supported. The superiority of the SEM approach and the theoretical meaning of its solution are discussed.
Au, K., & Cheung, M. W.-L. (2004). When do trustors thrive? A cross-level study on generalized trust. Manuscript submitted for publication.
2.
Barrett, P. T., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1998). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: An examination of the factorial similarity of P, E, N, and L across 34 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 805-819.
3.
Becker, B. J. (1992). Using results from replicated studies to estimate linear models. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17, 341-362.
4.
Becker, B. J. (1995). Corrections to “Using results from replicated studies to estimate linear models.” Journal of Educational Statistics, 20, 100-102.
5.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K. K., Reimel de Carrasquel, S., Murakami, F., et al. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their societal correlates across 41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 548-570.
7.
Browne, M. W., MacCallum, R. C., Kim, C. T., Andersen, B. L., & Glaser, R. (2002). When fit indices and residuals are incompatible. Psychological Methods, 7, 403-421.
8.
Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 555-574.
9.
Byrne, B. M., & Watkins, D. (2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 155-175.
10.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
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, 234-246.
12.
Chan, W., Ho, R. M., Leung, K., Chan, D. K.-S., & Yung, Y.-F. (1999). An alternative method for evaluating congruence coefficients with Procrustes rotation: A bootstrap procedure. Psychological Methods, 4, 378-402.
13.
Chao, G. T. (2000). Multilevel issues and culture: An integrative view. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 308-346). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 187-212.
15.
Cheung, M. W.-L. (2004). A direct estimation method on analyzing ipsative data with Chan and Bentler's (1993) method. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 217-243.
16.
Cheung, M. W.-L. (2005). TSSEM: A LISREL syntax generator for two-stage structural equation modeling (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Available at http://web.hku.hk/%7Emikewlch/tssem.zip
17.
Cheung, M. W.-L. (in press). Recovering preipsative information from additive ipsatized data: A factor score approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
18.
Cheung, M. W.-L., & Au, K. (2005). Applications of multilevel structural equation modeling to cross-cultural research. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 598-619.
19.
Cheung, M. W.-L., & Chan, W. (2002). Reducing uniform response bias with ipsative measurement in multiple group confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 55-77.
20.
Cheung, M. W.-L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 40-64.
21.
Cheung, M. W.-L., & Chan, W. (2005). Classifying correlation matrices into relatively homogeneous subgroups: A cluster analytic approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 954-979.
22.
Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Five and Tellegen's three and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 93-114.
23.
de Leeuw, E. D., & Hox, J. J. (2003). The use of meta-analysis in cross-national studies. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. Ph Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 329-345). New York: John Wiley.
24.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663.
25.
Fraser, C., & Gaskell, G. (1990). The social psychological study of widespread beliefs. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
26.
Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models(3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
27.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
28.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 3-10.
30.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
31.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
Inglehart, R., Basañez, M., & Moreno, A. (1998). Human values and beliefs: A cross-cultural sourcebook. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
33.
International Social Survey Program. (1997). International social science program: Work orientations II, 1997 (ICPSR version) [Computer file]. Koeln, Germany: Zentralarchiv fuer Empirische Sozialforschung [producer], 1999. Koeln, Germany: Zentralarchiv fuer Empirische Sozialforschung/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributiors], 2000.
34.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.
35.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: A user's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
36.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2003). LISREL 8.54 [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
37.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195-229.
38.
Klein, K. J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (1999). Multilevel theory building: Benefits, barriers, and new developments. Academy of Management Review, 24, 243-248.
39.
Kline, P. (1998). The new psychometrics: Science, psychology, and measurement. London: Routledge.
40.
Leung, K. (1989). Cross-cultural differences: Individual-level vs. culture-level analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 703-719.
41.
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions for cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 133-151.
42.
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multicultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119-197.
43.
Leung, K., Bond, M. H., Carrasquel, S. R., Munoz, C., Hernadez, M., Murakami, F., et al. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 286-302.
44.
Liang, J., & Bentler, P. M. (2004). An EM algorithm for fitting two-level structural equation models. Psychometrika, 69, 101-122.
45.
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretically issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53-76.
46.
Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Drezner, Z. (2003). Model specification searches using ant colony optimization algorithms. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 154-164.
48.
McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552-566.
49.
Muthén, B. O. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 376-398.
50.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus user's guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Authors.
51.
Oishi, S., Diener, E. F., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in predicting life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 980-990.
52.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
Rigdon, E. E. (1996). CFI versus RMSEA: A comparison of two fit indexes for structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 369-379.
54.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). The universal content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
55.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Towards a psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
56.
Schwartz, S. H., & Sagie, G. (2000). Value consensus and importance: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 465-497.
57.
Smith, P. B. (2002). Levels of analysis in cross-cultural psychology. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online readings in psychology and culture (Unit 2, Chapter 7). Bellingham, WA: Western Washington University, Center for Cross-Cultural Research. Retrieved from http://www.wwu.edu/%7Eculture
58.
Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (Personnel Research Section Report 984). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army.
59.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 33-51.
61.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2001). Personality in cultural context: Methodological Issues. Journal of Personality, 69, 1007-1031.
62.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2002). Structural equivalence in multilevel research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 141-156.
63.
van Hemert, D. A. (2003). Patterns of cross-cultural differences in psychology: A meta-analytic approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, the Netherlands.
64.
van Hemert, D. A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2002). The Beck Depression Inventory as a measure of subjective well-being: A cross-national study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 257-286.
65.
van Hemert, D. A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Poortinga,Y. H., & Georgas, J. (2002). Structural and functional equivalence of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire within and between countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1229-1249.
66.
Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J. G. J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2001). A comparison of methods for the evaluation of construct equivalence in a multigroup setting. In 2001 proceedings. American Statistical Association [CD-ROM]. Opladen, Germany: Leske+budrich.
