cross cultural research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Proc Biol Sci
• v.287(1935); 2020 Sep 30

Navigating cross-cultural research: methodological and ethical considerations

Tanya broesch.

1 Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, BC, Canada

Alyssa N. Crittenden

2 Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

Bret A. Beheim

3 Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture, Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

Aaron D. Blackwell

4 Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

John A. Bunce

Heidi colleran.

5 BirthRites Independent Max Planck Research Group, Max-Planck-Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

Kristin Hagel

Michelle kline.

6 Centre for Culture and Evolution, Brunel University, London, UK

Richard McElreath

Robin g. nelson.

7 Department of Anthropology, Santa Clara University, CA, USA

Anne C. Pisor

8 Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, MO, USA

Ilaria Pretelli

Benjamin purzycki.

9 Department of the Study of Religion, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Elizabeth A. Quinn

10 Department of Anthropology, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO, USA

Brooke Scelza

11 Department of Anthropology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Kathrine Starkweather

12 Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Chicago, USA

Jonathan Stieglitz

13 Institute for Advanced Study, Toulouse, France

Monique Borgerhoff Mulder

14 Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

Associated Data

This article has no additional data.

The intensifying pace of research based on cross-cultural studies in the social sciences necessitates a discussion of the unique challenges of multi-sited research. Given an increasing demand for social scientists to expand their data collection beyond WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) populations, there is an urgent need for transdisciplinary conversations on the logistical, scientific and ethical considerations inherent to this type of scholarship. As a group of social scientists engaged in cross-cultural research in psychology and anthropology, we hope to guide prospective cross-cultural researchers through some of the complex scientific and ethical challenges involved in such work: (a) study site selection, (b) community involvement and (c) culturally appropriate research methods. We aim to shed light on some of the difficult ethical quandaries of this type of research. Our recommendation emphasizes a community-centred approach, in which the desires of the community regarding research approach and methodology, community involvement, results communication and distribution, and data sharing are held in the highest regard by the researchers. We argue that such considerations are central to scientific rigour and the foundation of the study of human behaviour.

1. Introduction

The acknowledgement that most research in psychology and other adjacent fields is overwhelmingly based on so-called WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) populations [ 1 ] has given way to intensified research funding, publication and visibility of collaborative cross-cultural studies across the social sciences that expand the geographical range of study populations (e.g. [ 2 – 10 ]). The rapid expansion of cross-cultural team science has been precipitated by the ever-increasing availability of online global data sources and the expansion of the cross-cultural enterprise into fields such as economics [ 11 ], political science [ 12 ] and other disciplines with little previous field research expectations or ethnographic focus. This expansion necessarily generates concerns regarding responsible methods and practice. For example, many of the so-called non-WEIRD communities who participate in research are Indigenous, from low- and middle-income countries in the global South, live in post-colonial contexts, and/or are marginalized within their political systems, creating power differentials between researchers and researched [ 13 , 14 ]. This creates a need for transdisciplinary discussion on the importance of community participation and the explanation and sharing of research outputs with participants.

Given increasing pressure for social scientists to expand the range of societies from which they recruit participants to test hypotheses about human behaviour, we convened a working group to discuss some of the unique scientific and ethical challenges of cross-cultural research. As a group of investigators engaged in such research in psychology and anthropology, our research objectives include testing theoretically derived hypotheses to examine general patterning and explain cultural variation in human behaviour. As such, we face challenges in how to collect systematic data, either as the primary fieldworker or in collaboration with shorter-term visitors who wish to collect their own data. The growing appetite for including diverse populations in work on demography, health, wealth, cooperation, cognition, infant and child development, and belief systems raises unique scientific and ethical issues, independent of discipline or research topic.

This paper adds to the growing dialogue on best practices when working with populations or cultural groups in low- to middle-income regions (see [ 13 – 18 ]) and touches on topics that many social scientists, particularly cultural anthropologists, have been writing about for decades [ 19 , 20 ]. Much cross-cultural research has historically been rooted in racist, capitalist ideas and motivations [ 19 ]. Scholars have long debated whether research aiming to standardize cross-cultural measurements and analysis is tacitly engaged and/or continues to be rooted in colonial and imperialist practices [ 21 , 22 ]. Given this history, it is critical that participating scientists reflect upon these issues and be accountable to their participants and colleagues for their research practices. We argue that cross-cultural research be grounded in the recognition of the historical, political, sociological and cultural forces acting on the communities and individuals of focus. These perspectives are often contrasted with ‘science’; here we argue that they are necessary as a foundation for the study of human behaviour.

Here, we present considerations that we have found to be useful in our own work. More specifically, we propose that careful scrutiny of (a) study site selection, (b) community involvement and (c) culturally appropriate research methods will begin to address some of the complex scientific and ethical challenges of cross-cultural research. Particularly for those initiating collaborative cross-cultural projects, we focus here on pragmatic and implementable steps. We stress that our goal is not to review the literature on colonial or neo-colonial research practices, to provide a comprehensive primer on decolonizing approaches to field research, nor to identify or admonish past misdemeanours in these respects—misdemeanours to which many of the authors of this piece would readily admit. Furthermore, we acknowledge that we ourselves are writing from a place of privilege as researchers educated and trained in disciplines with colonial pasts. Our goal is simply to help researchers in the future better plan and execute their projects with appropriate consideration and inclusion of study communities and culturally appropriate methodologies.

(a) Study site selection

Study site selection in cross-cultural research involves three major conceptual issues. First, the increased interest in data collected from so-called non-Western societies means that study communities outside of WEIRD contexts are prized as sites for testing theories about human behaviour. This has sometimes led to an inclusion of ‘non-WEIRD’ populations in cross-cultural research without further regard for why specific populations should be included [ 23 ]. The binning of non-Western populations as a comparative sample to the cultural West (i.e. the ‘West versus rest’ approach) is often unwittingly reinforced by researchers who heeded the call to expand study site selection beyond WEIRD societies [ 1 ]. Here, we propose that researchers identify a clear theoretical justification for inclusion of any study population—WEIRD or not—based on knowledge of the relevant cultural and/or environmental context (see [ 24 ] for a good example). Regardless of whether a research group is investigating human universals or cultural variation, including any population in a study sample without justification of their inclusion is tantamount to binning and is, therefore, theoretically problematic [ 21 ].

Second, contemporary ‘small-scale’ communities continue to be discussed in the literature as proxies of our ancestral past—to varying degrees, often based on their food economy and the degree to which it is considered to be ‘traditional’ (e.g. foraging, small-scale horticulture). While some of these groups may occupy areas that are ecologically similar to the environments in which early modern humans lived and have social systems that may inform our understanding of those lifeways, these communities differ from early human communities in key ways. Many communities engage in mixed-subsistence practices [ 25 ] and currently reside in marginal environments that may not reflect their ancestral homelands [ 26 ]. Far from the romantic notion that such populations are uncontacted and living in harmony with the natural environment, in reality, they are impacted by ecological, social and political changes from outside/globalizing forces [ 27 ]. Studying contemporary communities as referential models of ancestral lifeways not only acts to further marginalize these societies, but can also lead to erroneous scientific conclusions—for example, about ancestral patterns of diet or cooperation (see [ 28 – 31 ]).

Third, when researchers design their cross-cultural studies, it is important to be cognizant that they are (to some extent) constrained by the relatively limited number of active field sites that can generate appropriate data. As such, cross-cultural investigators are working with a potentially biased sample of global populations from which broad inferences about humanity must be cautiously drawn (see [ 23 ]). This concern parallels our call for theoretical justification of the selection of samples; it is both the diversity of samples and the match between theory and cultural context that make for improved research design (see [ 23 ] for full discussion and examples).

To address these three conceptual issues, we suggest that researchers and reviewers problematize the exoticizing of particular peoples and cultures [ 32 ]. Taking such an approach also works to minimize the inclusion of particular populations based on how popular or iconic they may be to researchers. One way to do this is to take a theoretically motivated approach to sampling communities. For example, one might select communities that vary along the specific axis of theoretical interest, such as age structure, female-biased kinship or extent of market integration (see [ 23 ]).

Intra-population sampling decisions are also important as they involve unique ethical and social challenges. For example, foreign researchers (as sources of power, information and resources) represent both opportunities for and threats to community members. These relationships are often complicated by power differentials due to unequal access to wealth, education and historical legacies of colonization [ 15 – 20 ]. As such, it is important that investigators are alert to the possible bias among individuals who initially interact with researchers, to the potential negative consequences for those excluded, and to the (often unspoken) power dynamics between the researcher and their study participants (as well as among and between study participants) [ 32 – 35 ].

We suggest that a necessary first step is to carefully consult existing resources outlining best practices for ethical principles of research. Many of these resources have been developed over years of dialogue in various academic and professional societies (e.g. American Anthropological Association, International Association for Cross Cultural Psychology, International Union of Psychological Science). Furthermore, communities themselves are developing and launching research-based codes of ethics [ 36 , 37 ] and providing carefully curated open-access materials (e.g. https://www.itk.ca ), often written in consultation with ethicists in low- to middle-income countries (see [ 38 ]).

(b) Community involvement

Too often researchers engage in ‘extractive’ research, whereby a researcher selects a study community and collects the necessary data to exclusively further their own scientific and/or professional goals without benefiting the community. This reflects a long history of colonialism in social science [ 15 – 20 , 33 – 35 ]. Extractive methods may not only lead to methodological challenges but also act to alienate participants from the scientific process and are often unethical. Many researchers are associated with institutions tainted with colonial, racist and sexist histories, sentiments and in some instances perptuating into the present. Much cross-cultural research is carried out in former or contemporary colonies, and in the colonial language. Explicit and implicit power differentials create ethical challenges that can be acknowledged by researchers and in the design of their study (see [ 39 ] for an example in which the power and politics of various roles played by researchers is discussed). To provide examples of how to do this, we draw on frameworks from cultural anthropology and development studies, including participatory research, community collaboration and grounded theory [ 40 – 43 ]. What these frameworks hold in common, and what we reiterate here, is that it is critical that communities be included in study design, implementation and presentation of research/return of results. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, yet a productive baseline may be for researchers to consider community inclusion as part of their project design from the start. Ideally, the community is not only central to the planned research, but is leading it. We realize that not all research approaches can include a research team that spans the research institution, the investigators and the community; however, we would like to note that in many instances, community-based participatory research is shifting towards this type of relationship between researchers and study communities [ 44 , 45 ].

Even if a research project does not include co-investigators from the study community, or establishing a long-term community collaboration is not an aim, the inclusion of research participants at the outset is possible. For example, in a population genetic study on the early population history of Vanuatu [ 46 ], one of the authors (H.C.) explored different approaches to explain the initial purpose of the research project before data collection. At a broad level, an analogy with linguistic family trees was most salient for discussion of population history and emerged naturally from conversations with communities about whether to carry out the research in the first place. Learning to describe the DNA itself in Indigenous idioms was far more challenging and was only possible by including the community in all stages of the project. Another co-author (A.N.C.), provided feedback on temporal changes in food and water insecurity in a foraging population in Tanzania using a different strategy: she enlisted community members as data collectors, whose feedback on interview questions was incorporated prior to data collection in order to ensure that the concepts being queried were understood by participants [ 47 ].

Context-specific knowledge is important when planning how to obtain and document informed consent in an ethical and culturally appropriate way. Most informed consent procedures were developed within the medical research community, with strict criteria for inclusion and high standards of linguistic comprehension expected. For people whose only experience of signing a formal agreement is from legal, political or medical contexts, standard consent forms can have unintended significance. Accordingly, researchers may consider an active community-level discussion as part of the consent process prior to the seeking of individual-level consent (see [ 48 ] for a full discussion). Consent is also often thought to be a one-time transaction, usually at the beginning of a study, experiment or interview. However, this is not an appropriate fit for communities where formal legal obligations carry less currency than do reciprocal social relationships. Consent should, therefore, be seen as a process and a dialogue, also referred to as ‘dynamic consent’, not merely the collection of names and signatures [ 49 – 52 ].

A new suite of challenges emerges once data collection has ended. There are ethical issues regarding the return of research results and associated data to the community. It is important that researchers discuss this with participants as part of the consent process and respect the desires of the community in this regard. It is often considered best practice for researchers to provide ample time for participants to query and discuss results, either or both in collaborative discussions with the community or private discussions with interested respondents [ 36 – 38 , 48 ]. Ideally, such community discussions provide the researcher with novel insights into data interpretation while providing participants with a satisfactory understanding of the knowledge generated by the research and an opportunity to engage with the researchers' study motivations.

We also suggest that researchers consider how communities might benefit from access to the data they provide, and how local capacity to use such data can identified as part of the research [ 44 , 45 ]. Ultimately, we suggest a participant-led rather than top-down approach in making these decisions. By having conversations with participating communities about how they would like data returned, researchers and participants may find solutions for data sharing that are meaningful to communities—often through the production of archival works. For example, co-author A.C.P. collected video footage that was returned to the community; in a project on the production of handicrafts, the resultant video footage was uploaded to the internet, where community members indicated that they (and future generations) would have better access to the footage. Researchers and communities may consider uploading digital media to community-run websites or even to YouTube. When considering data sharing, however, it is important to note that some types of data-storage facilities (e.g. computers, libraries, YouTube) may not be accessible or appropriate to their participants. One strategy used independently by three of the authors (H.C., J.A.B. and A.N.C.) is to provide SD cards to participants with project-related video, photo and audio data which can be read by mobile phones. This allows information to be either kept secret by phone owners or to be shared. Another option used by co-author M.B.M. was to draw on her research to facilitate workshops for the writing and publication of a collectively sourced cultural history; she made copies of the book freely available to local schools [ 53 ]. A two-way dialogue between researchers and participants is needed to arrive at a reasonable solution based on participants’ preferences.

Data sharing may also include shifting ownership of research outputs to participants in a more explicit manner. For example, there is a set of recommended practices for research conducted within Indigenous communities in Canada which stipulate that data remains the property of the participating communities [ 54 ]. It is important to meet the ethical standards of communities as well as those of government and research institutions (e.g. universities). For some types of data (e.g. open access data sharing), this may include carefully anonymizing results before transferring ownership in order to protect individual or community identities. However, we recognize that researchers will need to consider the ethics of publishing information from study communities alongside the requirements of funding agencies and institutional review boards, as well as the priorities of open science. We suggest that the research be designed (and budgeted) to allow time to return to the study communities to present and discuss the results and these issues, if possible, prior to publication. For example, the Wenner-Gren foundation has a grant designed to enable grantees to return to their research location (e.g. http://www.wennergren.org/programs/engaged-anthropology-grant ).

Far too often, little attention is paid to the politics of representation when disseminating research results more widely, especially in online forums (including social media). It is important that all stakeholders, including all collaborating researchers, assume responsibility for the language used to describe results, whether by press offices or journalists or by the researchers themselves, as well as for the use of photographs, videos, audio recordings, material culture and artefacts in research and public outreach efforts. The recording and use of these materials should be addressed in the process of informed consent (see above). Sensationalizing or exoticizing images or language not only demeans study communities but can also undo years of careful community-based work. These practices are unethical because they may misrepresent participants; they can also affect relationships between study communities and field researchers. All researchers can bear these issues in mind and exert more control over public dissemination of their work. One suggestion to address these potential issues is for investigators themselves to write the press releases or, minimally, to review and approve press releases and associated images prepared by third parties.

(c) Research design and methods

Data collection methods largely stemming from WEIRD intellectual traditions are being exported to a range of cultural contexts. This is often done with insufficient consideration of the translatability (e.g. equivalence or applicability) or implementation of such concepts and methods in different contexts, as already well documented [ 15 – 20 ]. It is critical that researchers translate the language, technological references and stimuli as well as examine the underlying cultural context of the original method for assumptions that rely upon WEIRD epistemologies [ 55 , 56 ]. This extends to non-complex visual aids, attempting to ensure that even scales measure what the researcher is intending (see [ 57 ] for discussion on the use of a popular economic experiment in small-scale societies).

For example, in a developmental psychology study conducted by Broesch and colleagues [ 58 ], the research team exported a task to examine the development and variability of self-recognition in children across cultures. Typically, this milestone is measured by surreptitiously placing a mark on a child's forehead and allowing them to discover their reflective image and the mark in a mirror. While self-recognition in WEIRD contexts typically manifests in children by 18 months of age, the authors tested found that only 2 out of 82 children (aged 1–6 years) ‘passed’ the test by removing the mark using the reflected image. Note that they began testing younger children and moved up the developmental trajectory, eventually testing older children who also did not ‘pass the test’ by Western standards. Their results are unexplained by existing developmental theories. The authors' interpretation of these results is that performance reflects false negatives and instead measures implicit compliance to the local authority figure who placed the mark on the child. This raises the possibility that the mirror test may lack construct validity in cross-cultural contexts—in other words, that it may not measure what it was designed to measure.

An understanding of cultural norms may ensure that experimental protocols and interview questions are culturally and linguistically salient. This can be achieved by implementing several complementary strategies. A first step may be to collaborate with members of the study community to check the relevance of the instruments being used. Incorporating perspectives from the study community from the outset can reduce the likelihood of making scientific errors in measurement and inference [ 54 ].

An additional approach is to use mixed methods in data collection, such that each method ‘checks’ the data collected using the other methods. A recent paper (see [ 59 ]) provides suggestions for a rigorous methodological approach to conducting cross-cultural comparative psychology, underscoring the importance of using multiple methods with an eye towards a convergence of evidence. A mixed-method approach can incorporate a variety of methods such as participant observation, semi-structured interviews and experiments. For example, in their study on mate choice among Himba pastoralists of Namibia, Scelza and Prall [ 60 ] first employed semi-structured discussion groups and informal conversations with study participants. After better understanding the ways in which Himba themselves express desired characteristics of formal and informal partners, the researchers incorporated these characteristics into a ranking task [ 61 ]. Similarly, in a study of contraceptive use in rural Poland [ 62 ], qualitative interviews prior to formal data collection allowed the researchers to understand that the distinction between ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’ methods elicited very different (and apparently underreported) use than when the distinction was made between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’.

More generally, asking participants to talk aloud [ 63 ] as they complete a task or asking follow-up (debriefing) questions at the end of the experiment may allow researchers to better understand the decision-making processes at play (see [ 64 , 65 ] for recommendations and examples). Some guidelines for incorporating participant observation and qualitative interviews are available from Bernard [ 63 ] and Matsumoto & Van de Vijver [ 66 ]. For definitions, examples, and a full discussion of different kinds of bias in social science measures, see Van de Vijver & Tanzer [ 67 ]. There are also a number of Indigenous research methodologies that have been well-developed and extensively applied. For example, the Pagtatanong-tanong interview method developed and documented in the Philippines maximizes respect and equality by allowing equal time for participants and interviewers to engage in questioning (see [ 68 ]). We recommend using these resources as a guide prior to developing study methods and prioritizing the collection of baseline data, field testing instruments, and soliciting and incorporating community feedback before data collection commences.

2. Conclusion

Our aim here is to add to the growing dialogue on best practices in social science research, particularly as they relate to cross-cultural studies involving research participants from widely variable communities around the world. As research funding and publication of cross-cultural studies continues to expand across the social sciences, it is necessary to acknowledge the unique methodological and ethical challenges of this research. With scholars from a wide range of disciplines increasingly engaging in such research, often with little or no formal field training or experience working outside of post-industrialized contexts from the global North, special consideration of (a) study site selection, (b) community involvement and (c) locally appropriate implementation of research design and methods is essential. Our intention is not to discourage researchers from embarking on cross-cultural studies, but rather to alert them to the multi-dimensional considerations at play, ranging from study design to participant inclusion, and to encourage constructive exchange and collaboration with participant communities. We suggest one solution may be for researchers new to cross-cultural studies to collaborate with field researchers who have established, long-term relationships with communities. We are not proposing that long-term researchers should be considered gatekeepers to the communities where they work—that role should only be played by the communities themselves. Rather, we are suggesting that individuals with established ties to a community may be useful guides for locally relevant materials, locally appropriate ethical and practical guidelines, and local contacts.

Transdisciplinary dialogue on principles and practices are useful not only for researchers (at all career stages) but also for funding agencies and reviewers evaluating twenty-first-century cross-cultural research across multiple domains of science. In short, deeper consideration of how to select sites for comparative investigations, how to engage target communities, and how to design research protocols in culturally sensitive ways will allow researchers to address some of the ethical and logistical challenges highlighted here—issues that all of the co-authors of this piece continue to grapple with in our own research and the communities with whom we work.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgements.

We thank the host communities with whom we have worked for their patience, collaboration and the knowledge that they have shared. We also thank Claudia Jacobi and the staff at MPI-EVA in Leipzig for their work in hosting the workshop, and Shani Msafiri Mangola, Elspeth Ready, Tim Caro and Daniel Benyshek for helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript. T.B. also thanks the Coady International Institute, particularly Allison Mathie and Gord Cunningham for hosting, teaching and supporting her transition to participant-engaged research.

Data accessibility

Authors' contributions.

All authors contributed to the idea, outline and structure of the manuscript at the MPI workshop. T.B. and A.N.C. wrote the first draft of the manuscript with edits by M.B.M. The following authors provided comments and edits on manuscript drafts: J.A.B., H.C., K.H., M.K., R.G.N., A.C.P., C.R. and B.S. The following authors contributed to discussions at the workshop: B.A.B., A.D.B., R.M., S.P., I.P., B.P., E.A.Q., K.S., J.S. All authors edited and approved the final manuscript.

The workshop that generated the basis for this manuscript was funded by the Department of Human Behaviour, Ecology and Culture at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany (proposal written by authors M.K. and R.G.N. and coordinated by M.K., R.G.N., K.S.). J.S. acknowledges funding from the French National Research Agency under the Investments for the Future (Investissements d'Avenir) programme (ANR-17-EURE-0010).

Competing interests

We declare we have no competing interests.

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Cross-cultural research allows you to identify important similarities and differences across cultures. This research approach involves comparing two or more cultural groups on psychological variables of interest to understand the links between culture and psychology better.

As Matsumoto and van de Vijver (2021) explain, cross-cultural comparisons test the boundaries of knowledge in psychology. Findings from these studies promote international cooperation and contribute to theories accommodating both cultural and individual variation.

However, there are also risks involved. Flawed methodology can produce incorrect cultural knowledge. Thus, cross-cultural scientists must address methodological issues beyond those faced in single-culture studies.

Methodology

Cross-cultural comparative research utilizes quasi-experimental designs comparing groups on target variables.

Cross-cultural research takes an etic outsider view, testing theories and standardized measurements often derived elsewhere. 

• Studies can be exploratory , aimed at increasing understanding of cultural similarities and differences by staying close to the data.
• In contrast, hypothesis-testing studies derive from pre-established frameworks predicting specific cultural differences. They substantially inform theory but may overlook unexpected findings outside researcher expectations (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Each approach has tradeoffs. Exploratory studies broadly uncover differences but have limited explanatory power. While good for revealing novel patterns, exploratory studies cannot address the reasons behind cross-cultural variations.

Hypothesis testing studies substantially inform theory but may overlook unexpected findings. Optimally, cross-cultural research should combine elements of both approaches.

Ideal cross-cultural research combines elements of exploratory work to uncover new phenomena and targeted hypothesis testing to isolate cultural drivers of observed differences (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Cross-cultural scientists should strategically intersect exploratory and theory-driven analysis while considering issues of equivalence and ecological validity.

Other distinctions include: comparing psychological structures versus absolute score levels; analysis at the individual versus cultural levels; and combining individual-level data with country indicators in multilevel modeling (Lun & Bond, 2016; Santos et al., 2017)

Methodological Considerations

Cross-cultural research brings unique methodological considerations beyond single-culture studies. Matsumoto and van de Vijver (2021) explain two key interconnected concepts – bias and equivalence.

Bias refers to systematic differences in meaning or methodology across cultures that threaten the validity of cross-cultural comparisons.

Bias signals a lack of equivalence, meaning score differences do not accurately reflect true psychological construct differences across groups.

There are three main types of bias:

• Construct bias stems from differences in the conceptual meaning of psychological concepts across cultures. This can occur due to incomplete overlap in behaviors related to the construct or differential appropriateness of certain behaviors in different cultures.
• Method bias arises from cross-cultural differences in data collection methods. This encompasses sample bias (differences in sample characteristics), administration bias (differences in procedures), and instrument bias (differences in meaning of specific test items across cultures).
• Item bias refers to specific test items functioning differently across cultural groups, even for people with the same standing on the underlying construct. This can result from issues like poor translation, item ambiguity, or differential familiarity or relevance of content.

Techniques to identify and minimize bias focus on achieving equivalence across cultures. This involves similar conceptualization, data collection methods, measurement properties, scale units and origins, and more.

Careful study design, measurement validation, data analysis, and interpretation help strengthen equivalence and reduce bias.

Equivalence

Equivalence refers to cross-cultural similarity that enables valid comparisons. There are multiple interrelated types of equivalence that researchers aim to establish:

• Conceptual/Construct Equivalence : Researchers evaluate whether the same theoretical construct is being measured across all cultural groups. This can involve literature reviews, focus groups, and pilot studies to assess construct relevance in each culture. Claims of inequivalence argue concepts can’t exist or be understood outside cultural contexts, precluding comparison.
• Functional Equivalence : Researchers test for identical patterns of correlations between the target instrument and other conceptually related and unrelated constructs across cultures. This helps evaluate whether the measure relates to other variables similarly in all groups.
• Structural Equivalence : Statistical techniques like exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis are used to check that underlying dimensions of multi-item instruments have the same structure across cultures.
• Measurement Unit Equivalence : Researchers determine if instruments have identical scale properties and meaning of quantitative score differences within and across cultural groups. This can be checked via methods like differential item functioning analysis.

Multifaceted assessment of equivalence is key for valid interpretation of score differences reflecting actual psychological variability across cultures.

Establishing equivalence requires careful translation and measurement validation using techniques like differential item functioning analysis, assessing response biases, and examining practical significance. Adaptation of instruments or procedures may be warranted to improve relevance for certain groups.

Building equivalence into the research process reduces non-equivalence biases. This avoids incorrect attribution of score differences to cultural divergence, when differences may alternatively reflect methodological inconsistencies.

Procedures to Deal With Bias

Researchers can take steps before data collection (a priori procedures) and after (a posteriori procedures) to deal with bias and equivalence threats. Using both types of procedures is optimal (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Designing cross-cultural studies (a priori procedure)

Simply documenting cultural differences has limited scientific value today, as differences are relatively easy to obtain between distant groups. The critical challenge facing contemporary cross-cultural researchers is isolating the cultural sources of observed differences (Matsumoto & Yoo, 2006).

This involves first defining what constitutes a cultural (vs. noncultural) explanatory variable. Studies should incorporate empirical measures of hypothesized cultural drivers of differences, not just vaguely attribute variations to overall “culture.”

Both top-down and bottom-up models of mutual influence between culture and psychology are plausible. Research designs should align with the theorized causal directionality.

Individual-level cultural factors must also be distinguished conceptually and statistically from noncultural individual differences like personality traits. Not all self-report measures automatically concern “culture.” Extensive cultural rationale is required.

Multi-level modeling can integrate data across individual, cultural, and ecological levels. However, no single study can examine all facets of culture and psychology simultaneously.

Pursuing a narrow, clearly conceptualized scope often yields greater returns than superficial breadth (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021). By tackling small pieces thoroughly, researchers collectively construct an interlocking picture of how culture shapes human psychology.

Sampling (a priori procedure)

Unlike typical American psychology research drawing from student participant pools, cross-cultural work often cannot access similar convenience samples .

Groups compared across cultures frequently diverge substantially in background characteristics beyond the cultural differences of research interest (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Demographic variables like educational level easily become confounds making it difficult to interpret whether cultural or sampling factors drive observed differences in psychological outcomes. Boehnke et al. (2011) note samples of greater cultural distance often have more confounding influences .

Guidelines exist to promote adequate within-culture representativeness and cross-cultural matching on key demographics that cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the research hypotheses. This allows empirically isolating effects of cultural variables over and above sample characteristics threatening equivalence.

Where perfect demographic matching is impossible across widely disparate groups, analysts should still measure and statistically control salient sample variables that may form rival explanations for group outcome differences. This unpacks whether valid cultural distinctions still exist after addressing sampling confounds.

In summary, sampling rigor in subject selection and representativeness support isolating genuine cultural differences apart from method factors, jeopardizing equivalence in cross-cultural research.

Designing questions and scales (a priori procedure)

Cross-cultural differences in response styles when using rating scales have posed persistent challenges. Once viewed as merely nuisance variables requiring statistical control, theory now conceptualizes styles like social desirability, acquiescence, and extremity as a meaningful individual and cultural variation in their own right (Smith, 2004).

For example, an agreeableness acquiescence tendency may be tracked with harmony values in East Asia. Efforts to simply “correct for” response style biases can thus discount substantive culture-linked variation in scale scores (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Guidelines help adapt item design, instructions, response options, scale polarity, and survey properties to mitigate certain biases and equivocal interpretations when comparing scores across groups.

It remains important to assess response biases empirically through statistical controls or secondary measures. This evaluates whether cultural score differences reflect intended psychological constructs above and beyond style artifacts.

Appropriately contextualizing different response tendencies allows judiciously retaining stylistic variation attributable to cultural factors while isolating bias-threatening equivalence. Interpreting response biases as culturally informative rather than merely as problematic noise affords richer analysis.

In summary, response styles exhibit differential prevalence across cultures and should be analyzed contextually through both control and embrace rather than simplistically dismissed as invalid nuisance factors.

A Posteriori Procedures to Deal With Bias

After data collection, analysts can evaluate measurement equivalence and probe biases threatening the validity of cross-cultural score comparisons (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

For structure-oriented studies examining relationships among variables, techniques like exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and multidimensional scaling assess similarities in conceptual dimensions across groups. This establishes structural equivalence.

For comparing group mean scores, methods like differential item functioning, logistic regression, and standardization identify biases causing specific items or scales to function differently across cultures. Addressing biases promotes equivalence (Fischer & Fontaine, 2011; Sireci, 2011).

Multilevel modeling clarifies connections between culture-level ecological factors, individual psychological outcomes, and variables at other levels simultaneously. This leverages the nested nature of cross-cultural data (Matsumoto et al., 2007).

Supplementing statistical significance with effect sizes evaluates the real-world importance of score differences. Metrics like standardized mean differences and probability of superiority prevent overinterpreting minor absolute variations between groups (Matsumoto et al., 2001).

In summary, a posteriori analytic approach evaluates equivalence at structural and measurement levels and isolates biases interfering with valid score comparisons across cultures. Quantifying practical effects also aids replication and application.

Ethical Issues

Several ethical considerations span the research process when working across cultures. In design, conscious efforts must counteract subtle perpetuation of stereotypes through poorly constructed studies or ignorance of biases.

Extensive collaboration with cultural informants and members can alert researchers to pitfalls (Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2021).

Recruiting participants ethically becomes more complex globally, as coercion risks increase without shared assumptions about voluntary participation rights.

Securing comprehensible, properly translated informed consent also grows more demanding, though remains an ethical priority even when local guidelines seem more lax. Confidentiality protections likewise prove more intricate across legal systems, requiring extra researcher care.

Studying sensitive topics like gender, sexuality, and human rights brings additional concerns in varying cultural contexts, necessitating localized ethical insight.

Analyzing and reporting data in a culturally conscious manner provides its own challenges, as both subtle biases and consciously overgeneralizing findings can spur harm.

Above all, ethical cross-cultural research requires recognizing communities as equal partners, not mere data sources. From first consultations to disseminating final analyses, maintaining indigenous rights and perspectives proves paramount to ethical engagement.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Bond, M. H., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2011). Making scientific sense of cultural differences in psychological outcomes: Unpackaging the magnum mysteriosum. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 75–100). Cambridge University Press.

Fischer, R., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2011). Methods for investigating structural equivalence. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 179–215). Cambridge University Press.

Hambleton, R. K., & Zenisky, A. L. (2011). Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 46–74). Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, T., Shavitt, S., & Holbrook, A. (2011). Survey response styles across cultures. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 130–176). Cambridge University Press.

Matsumoto, D., Grissom, R., & Dinnel, D. (2001). Do between-culture differences really mean that people are different? A look at some measures of cultural effect size. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (4), 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032004007

Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. P. (2023). Culture and psychology (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Matsumoto, D., & van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2021). Cross-cultural research methods in psychology. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 97-113). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000318-005

Matsumoto, D., & Yoo, S. H. (2006). Toward a new generation of cross cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (3), 234-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00014.x

Nezlek, J. (2011). Multilevel modeling. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 299–347). Cambridge University Press.

Shweder, R. A. (1999). Why cultural psychology? Ethos, 27 (1), 62–73.

Sireci, S. G. (2011). Evaluating test and survey items for bias across languages and cultures. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 216–243). Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35 (1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022103260380

van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2009). Types of cross-cultural studies in cross-cultural psychology. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2 (2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1017

Bridging Cultures Through Research

Explore the richness of human diversity with the Society for Cross-Cultural Research. We’re at the forefront of interdisciplinary studies, illuminating the complexities of cultures worldwide.

Mission and Vision

At the Society for Cross-Cultural Research, we’re dedicated to expanding the understanding of cultural diversity and its impact on human behavior. Our vision is to foster global connections and insights through rigorous research and interdisciplinary collaboration.

History and Constitution

Founded in 1972, SCCR has long been a beacon for scholars interested in the comparative study of human cultures. Our constitution is a testament to our commitment to inclusivity, integrity, and academic excellence.

SCCR Statement of Ethics and Values

We believe in respect, open-mindedness, and professional integrity in all our interactions. Our ethics and values reflect our dedication to fostering meaningful dialogue and collaboration across diverse cultures.

Discover the minds driving SCCR forward. From our President to our dedicated officers, each member brings a unique perspective and expertise to our society.

Annual Meeting Highlight

Join us for the upcoming Annual Meeting of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research, a dynamic convergence of scholars and researchers from around the globe. This year, we dive into the latest in cross-cultural studies, offering an unparalleled opportunity for networking, learning, and collaboration. Stay tuned for a deep dive into cultures, discussions on groundbreaking research, and a celebration of diversity in thought and practice.

Awards Overview

Recognition is at the heart of SCCR, where we celebrate the outstanding contributions of our members to cross-cultural understanding. From early career researchers making significant impacts to lifetime achievements that have shaped our field, our awards encompass a broad spectrum of scholarly excellence. Explore the various awards including the Minturn Award for Early Career Research, the Whiting Award for Student Research, and more.

Benefits of Joining SCCR

Becoming a member of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research (SCCR) offers a suite of benefits tailored to enhance your research and networking within the field of cross-cultural studies. Here are the key advantages of joining our community:

• Access to Cross-Cultural Research Journal: Stay ahead with the latest findings and research insights published in our esteemed journal.
• Newsletters: Receive our newsletters, keeping you updated with the society’s activities, opportunities, and developments in cross-cultural research.
• Discounts: Enjoy discounted rates on conference registrations, providing you with more opportunities to connect, learn, and grow professionally.
• A Global Network: Join a vibrant community of scholars, researchers, and practitioners from around the world, fostering opportunities for collaboration and exchange.

Membership Categories

Explore our membership categories designed to suit different needs and stages of professional development:

Regular Membership

One Year: $65

Two Years: $115

✓ Full access to the Cross-Cultural Research journal, newsletters, discounted conference rates, and voting privileges.

Student Membership

One Year: $35

Two Years: $65

✓ Designed for students, offering all the benefits of Regular membership at a reduced rate.

Retired Membership

One Year: $45

Two Years: $80

✓ For retired professionals, providing full membership benefits at a discounted rate.

Research and Publications

Cross-cultural research journal.

Although Cross-Cultural Research Journal is no longer the official journal of SCCR, it serves the pivotal role of fostering interdisciplinary and comparative research aimed at crafting scientifically backed generalizations about human behavior. We continue to encourage members to submit their work to CCR and consider other cross-cultural outlets.

Manuscript Submission Guidelines | Aims & Scope of CCR | Table of Contents of CCR Volumes Since 1966 | Editorial Board

Dive deep into cross-cultural studies with this premier publication, a testament to the society’s dedication to advancing understanding across cultural boundaries.

Stay connected with the latest insights and updates from the Society for Cross-Cultural Research. We are currently searching for a new newsletter editor; however, our archive of prior issues remains available.

Latest Issue | Archive

Cross-Cultural Links

For those looking to broaden their research and connections, we offer quick access to a variety of related organizations and journals. These links serve as a gateway to the wider world of cross-cultural research, offering valuable perspectives and scholarly contributions.

View Cross-Cultural Links

Dive into these resources to enrich your exploration of cross-cultural dimensions and foster meaningful academic and professional growth.

Explore The Blog

Dive into our latest blog posts for insights, discoveries, and reflections on cross-cultural research. Stay informed and inspired with contributions from our community of scholars.

SCCR 2023 Submission Portal & Registration OPEN!

Sccr 51st annual meeting – san juan, puerto rico, sccr’s statement of solidarity, dr. barbara rogoff on the strengths of the underserved, updates before 2016, photo from namibia field work.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Report this content
• View site in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Cross-Cultural Psychology

WEIRD, Culture

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Cross-cultural psychology is a branch of psychology that explores the similarities and differences in thinking and behavior between individuals from different cultures.

Scientists using a cross-cultural approach focus on and compare participants from diverse cultural groups to examine ways in which cognitive styles, perception, emotional expression, personality , and other psychological features relate to cultural contexts. They also compare cultural groups on broad dimensions such as individualism and collectivism—roughly, how much a culture emphasizes its members’ individuality versus their roles in a larger group.

Psychologists who are interested in expanding psychology’s focus on diverse cultures have pointed out that the majority of research participants are, to use a popular term, WEIRD: they are from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic societies. Cross-cultural research has made it clear that what psychologists conclude about this slice of the world’s population does not always extend to people with other cultural backgrounds.

• What Is Cross-Cultural Psychology?
• Psychological Differences Across Cultures
• The WEIRDness of Psychology

Psychology’s mission to understand how humans think and behave requires studying humanity as broadly as possible—not just the humans to which researchers tend to be nearest. Psychologists who conduct cross-cultural research investigate the richness of human psychological variation across the world, including points of consistency and divergence between populations with distinct cultural backgrounds, such as those in Western and East Asian countries.

Psychological research that incorporates a more global sample of people provides insights into whether findings and models (such as those about the structure of personality or the nature of mental illness) are universal or not, the extent to which psychological phenomena and characteristics vary across cultures, and the potential reasons for these differences. Cross-cultural research demonstrates that experimental effects, correlations, or other results that are observed in one cultural context—for example, the tendency of Western participants to rate their abilities as better-than-average—do not always appear in the same way, or at all, in others.

While various definitions are used, culture can be understood as the collection of ideas and typical ways of doing things that are shared by members of a society and have been passed down through generations. These can include norms, rules, and values as well as physical creations such as tools.

Cross-cultural studies allow psychologists to make comparisons and inferences about people from different countries or from broader geographic regions (such as North America or the Western world). But psychologists also compare groups at smaller scales, such as people from culturally distinct subpopulations or areas of the same country, or immigrants and non-immigrants. 

While there is overlap between these approaches, there are also differences. Cross-cultural psychology analyzes characteristics and behavior across different cultural groups, with an interest in variation as well as human universals. Cultural psychology involves comparison as well, but has been described as more focused on psychological processes within a particular culture. In another approach, indigenous psychology, research methods, concepts, and theories are developed within the context of the culture being studied.

The inhabitants of different regions and countries have a great deal in common : They build close social relationships, follow rules established by their communities, and engage in important rituals. But globally, groups also exhibit somewhat different psychological tendencies in domains ranging from the strictness of local rules to how happiness and other emotions are conceived. Of course, within each region, nation, or community, there is plenty of individual variation; people who share a culture never think and act in exactly the same way. Cross-cultural psychology seeks to uncover how populations with shared cultures differ on average from those with other cultural backgrounds—and how those differences tie back to cultural influence.

While there are shared aspects of emotional experience across cultural groups, culture seems to influence how people describe, evaluate, and act on emotions. For example, while the experience of shame follows perceived wrongdoing across cultures, having shame may be evaluated more positively in some cultures than in others and may be more likely to prompt behavioral responses such as reaching out to others rather than withdrawing. Different emotional concepts (such as “ anxiety ,” “ fear ,” and “ grief ”) may also be thought of as more or less closely related to each other in different cultures. And cultural differences have been observed with regard to how emotions are interpreted and the “display rules” that individuals learn about appropriate emotional expression.

While happiness seems to be one of the most cross-culturally recognizable emotions in terms of individual expression, culture can influence how one thinks about happiness. Research indicates that people in different cultures vary in how much value they place on happiness and how much they focus on their own well-being. Culture may also affect how people believe happiness should be defined and achieved —whether a good life is to be found more in individual self-enhancement or through one’s role as part of a collective, for example. 

Some mental health conditions, in addition to being reported at markedly different rates in different countries, can also be defined and even experienced in different ways. The appearance of depression may depend partly on culture —with mood-related symptoms emphasized in how Americans think of depression , for example, and bodily symptoms potentially more prominent in China. Features of certain cultural groups, such as highly stable social networks, may also serve as protective factors against the risk of mental illness. Increased understanding of cultural idiosyncrasies could lead to gains in mental health treatment.

Individualism and collectivism are two of the contrasting cultural patterns described in cross-cultural psychology. People in relatively collectivist cultures are described as tending to define themselves as parts of a group and to heed the norms and goals of the group. Those in relatively individualistic cultures are thought to emphasize independence and to favor personal attitudes and preferences to a greater degree. Cross-cultural psychologists have pointed to East Asia, Latin America, and Africa as regions where collectivism is relatively prominent and much of Europe, the U.S., and Canada as among those where individualism is more pronounced. But individualism-collectivism is thought of as a continuum, with particular countries, and cultures within those countries, showing a balance of each.

Tightness and looseness are contrasting cultural patterns related to how closely people adhere to social rules. Each culture has its own rules and norms about everything from acceptable public behavior to what kinds of intimate relationships are allowed. But in some cultures, or even in particular domains within cultures (such as the workplace), the importance placed on rules and norms and the pressure on people to follow them are greater than in other cultural contexts. Relatively rule-bound cultures have been described as “tight” cultures, while more permissive cultures are called “loose.” As with individualism and collectivism, tightness and looseness are thought of as opposite ends of the same dimension.

It seems to be. In the West, the Big Five model of personality traits and related models were developed to broadly map out personality differences, and they have been tested successfully in multiple countries. But research suggests that in some cultures, the Big Five traits are not necessarily the best way to describe how people perceive individual differences. Scientists have also found that associations between personality traits and outcomes that appear in some cultures may not be universal. For example, while more extraverted North Americans appear to be happier, on average, extraverts may not have the same advantage elsewhere.

While some mating preferences, such as a desire for kindness and physical attractiveness in a partner, appear in many if not all cultures, preferences also differ in some ways across cultures—like the importance placed on humor or other traits. In the realm of physical attraction , both men’s preferences and women’s preferences seem to depend partly on the cultural context, with research suggesting that men in wealthier societies more strongly favor women of average-to-slender weight, for instance.

In cross-cultural psychology, an analytic cognitive style roughly describes a tendency to focus on a salient object, person, or piece of information (as in an image or a story) independently from the context in which it appears. A holistic cognitive style, in contrast, involves a tendency to focus more on the broader context and relationship between objects. Using a variety of tasks—such as one in which a scene with both focal objects and background elements is freely described—psychologists have reported evidence that participants from Western cultures (like the U.S.) tend to show a more analytic cognitive style, while those from East Asian cultures (like Japan) show a more holistic cognitive style. Analytic thinking and holistic thinking have been theorized to stem, respectively, from independent and interdependent cultural tendencies.

The psychological findings that get the most attention are disproportionately derived from a fraction of the world’s population. Some scientists call this relatively well-examined subgroup of human societies WEIRD: that is, Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. As long as people who live in countries that meet these descriptors are the primary subjects of psychological research—and that has long been the case—it will often be difficult for psychologists to determine whether an observation applies to people in general or only to those in certain cultural contexts. Increasing the representation of people from diverse cultures in research is therefore a goal of many psychologists.

WEIRD populations are those who are broadly part of the Western world and who live in democratic societies that feature high levels of education , wealth, and industrialization. While there is not a single agreed-upon list of WEIRD cultures—and populations within particular countries can show different levels of these characteristics—commonly cited examples of WEIRD countries include the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and other parts of Western Europe, and Australia. 

Sampling top psychology journals in the mid-2000s, psychologist Jeffrey Arnett observed that 96 percent of research subjects came from Western, industrialized countries that represented just 12 percent of the world’s population, and that about two-thirds were from the U.S. Subjects seemed to largely be sourced from the countries in which the researchers lived. In 2010, citing this finding and others, Joseph Henrich, Steven Heine, and Ara Norenzayan introduced the term WEIRD to describe this subpopulation. They expanded on the problems with focusing so exclusively on such participants and with assuming that findings from a relatively unrepresentative group generalized to the rest of the world.

In numerical terms, it seems, not much. While the problems with global underrepresentation in psychology research have gained more attention in recent years, an updated analysis of top journals in the mid-2010s found that the vast majority of samples were still from Western, industrialized countries, with about 60 percent from the U.S.

In many ways, WEIRD populations seem to be less representative of humans in general than non-WEIRD populations are. Overlapping with other findings from cross-cultural psychology, psychological differences between people from relatively WEIRD countries and those from elsewhere have been noted: WEIRD samples show higher levels of individualism and lower levels of conformity , on average, among other characteristics. One scientist behind the WEIRD concept theorizes that societal changes in the West caused by the Catholic Church, and their subsequent cultural impact, help explain these signature differences.

A new practical method for promoting fair-mindedness, reducing bias and engaging in meaningful conversations that promote understanding and progress.

Ever feel like you’re struggling to connect with a therapist? Discover what experts have to say about culturally congruent care.

Ever wonder why there are few minority psychologists? This may be one of the reasons.

Discover whether being on time really matters and how it can reflect a culture's values.

We hold two misconceptions about our shared history that may limit our belief about our future. When we learn the truth about our past, we can find our way to a better tomorrow.

Discover harmony and balance in Balinese culture with Tri Hita Karana principles, enriching your life and community.

A recent study of 4 million people reveals why wealthier people buck the trend of city-dwellers having fewer children, shedding light on our evolved mating strategies.

Is death really the end of everything? Research on after-death communication experiences may offer clues.

A good leader can use these four methods to harvest fresh perspectives from their existing team. Here's how.

Whatever one’s views on the immutability or otherwise of biological sex, gender is itself a sociolinguistic construct, confected in a cultural context.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Cross-Cultural Research Methods

Strategies, Problems, Applications

Cite this chapter

• Richard W. Brislin 4  

Part of the book series: Human Behavior and Environment ((HUBE,volume 4))

785 Accesses

136 Citations

Cross-cultural studies are necessary for the complete development of theories in environmental research since no one culture contains all environmental conditions that can affect human behavior. Likewise, no one country contains all possible types of man-made changes of the physical environment, nor all of the man-made adaptations to natural conditions such as climate, noise, air quality, and potential hazards. In addition, many places in which environmental researchers might be asked to work are in parts of the world where “development” is seen as a necessity or at least a desideratum. These places are often in countries where empirical research is not a well-established entity, hence the necessity for importing advisers from other countries. Although frequently forgotten (Fahvar & Milton, 1972), environmental assessments prepared by such advisers should include analyses of how a development project will affect a culture and even the behavior of people for whom the project was designed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Criterion Problem in Cross-Cultural Research

Ethical Issues in Cultural Research on Human Development

Altman, I. & Chemers, M. Cultural aspects of environment-behavior relationships. In H. Triandis & R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 5). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, E. Some Chinese methods of dealing with crowding. Urban Anthropology , 1972, 2(2), 141–150.

Barry, H. The Human Relations Area Files. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology , (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Berry, J. On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology , 1969, 4, 119 – 128.

Article   Google Scholar  

Berry, J. Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York: Wiley/Halsted, 1976.

Berry, J. Introduction to cross-cultural methodology. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Brebner, J., Rump, E., & Delin, P. A cross-cultural replication of attitudes to the physical environment. International Journal of Psychology , 1976, 11 , 111–118.

Brislin, R. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 1970, 1 , 185–216.

Brislin, R. Interaction among members of nine ethnic groups and the belief-similarity hypothesis. Journal of Social Psychology , 1971, 85 , 171–179.

Brislin, R. Comparative research methodology: Cross-cultural studies. International Journal of Psychology , 1976a, 11 , 215–229.

Brislin, R. (Ed.). Translation: Applications and research. New York: Gardner and Wiley/ Halsted, 1976b.

Brislin, R. Methodology of cognitive studies. In G. Kearney & D. McElwain (Eds.), Aboriginal cognition: Retrospect and prospect. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1976c, pp. 29–53.

Brislin, R. Oral and written materials: Content analysis and translation. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Brislin, R., & Baumgardner, S. Non-random sampling of individuals in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 1971, 4 , 397–400.

Brislin, R., & Holwill, F. Reactions of indigenous people to the writings of behavioral and social scientists. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 1977, 2(2), 15–34.

Brislin, R., & Keating, C. Cultural differences in the perception of a three dimensional Ponzo illusion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 1976, 7 , 397–412.

Brislin, R., Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R. Cross-cultural research methods. New York: John Wiley, 1973.

Campbell, D. The mutual methodological relevance of anthropology and psychology. In F. Hsu (Ed.), Psychological anthropology. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1961.

Campbell, D. A cooperative multinational opinion sample exchange. Journal of Social Issues , 1968, 24 , 245–258.

Campbell, D. Perspective artifact and control. In R. Rosenthal & R. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic Press, 1969, pp. 351–382.

Campbell, D., & Erlebacher, A. How regression artifacts in quasi-experimental evaluations can mistakenly make compensatory education look harmful. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Compensatory education: A national debate. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1970, pp. 185–210.

Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin , 1959, 56 , 81–105.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. Experimental and quasi-experimental design for research. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1966.

Cole, M., & Scribner, S. Culture and thought: A psychological introduction. New York: Wiley, 1974.

Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D. The cultural context of learning and thinking. New York: Basic Books, 1971.

Cronbach, L. J., & Drenth, P. J. D. (Eds.). Mental tests and cultural adaptation. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.

Dasen, P. R. Cross-cultural Piagetian research: A summary. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 1972, 3 , 23–39.

Davidson, A., Jaccard, J., Triandis, H. C., Morales, M., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. Cross-cultural model testing: Toward a solution of the emic-etic dilemma. International Journal of Psychology , 1976, 11 , 1–13.

Deregowski, J. Perception. In H. Triandis & W. Lonner (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 3). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Doob, L. Foreword. In R. Brislin, W. Lonner, & R. Thorndike, Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley, 1973, pp. v-vii.

Dziuban, C., & Shirkey, E. When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin , 1974, 81 , 358–361.

Ervin-Tripp, S. Language and TAT content in French-English bilinguals. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1964, 68 , 500–507.

Fahvar, M., & Milton, J. (Eds.). The careless technology: Ecology and international development. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, 1972.

Frey, F. Cross-cultural survey research in political science. In R. Holt & J. Turner (Eds.), The methodology of comparative research. New York: The Free Press, 1970, pp. 173–264.

Frijda, N., & Jahoda, G. On the scope and methods of cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology , 1966, 1 , 109–127.

Golde, P. (Ed.). Women in the field: Anthropological experiences. Chicago: Addison-Wesley, 1970.

Goodenough, W. Field methods. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980.

Groenman, S. Foreword. In P. Jacob, Values and the active community. New York: Free Press, 1971, pp. xv-xix.

Gudykunst, W., Hammer, M., & Wiseman, R. An analysis of an integrated approach to cross-cultural training. International Journal of Inter cultural Relations , 1977, 1(2) , 99–110.

Guthrie, G. Unexpected correlations and the cross-cultural method. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 1971, 2 , 315–323.

Guthrie, G. Problems of measurement in cross-cultural research. In L. Loeb-Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1977, 285 , pp. 131–140.

Hall, E. The silent language. New York: Doubleday, 1959.

Harrington. R. One man’s special island. Parade , January 7, 1973, pp. 21–22.

Holsti, O. Content analysis. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology , (Vol. 2, 2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968, pp. 596–692.

Irvine, S. Tests and psychometrics. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980.

Irwin, M., Klein, R., Engle, P., Yarbrough, C., & Nerlove, S. The problem of establishing validity in cross-cultural measurements. In L. Loeb-Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1977, 285 , pp. 308–325.

Irwin, M., Schafer, G., & Feiden, C. Emic and unfamiliar category sorting of Mano farmers and U.S. undergraduates. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 1974, 5 , 407–423.

Janis, I. The problem of validating content analysis. In H. Laswell & N. Leites (Eds.), The language of politics: Studies in quantitative semantics. New York: George Stewart, 1949, pp. 55–82.

Johannes, R. Traditional law of the sea in Micronesia. Micronesica , 1977, 23(2), 121–127.

Keesing, R., & Keesing, F. New perspectives in cultural anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1971.

Kroeber, A., & Kluckhohn, C. Culture. Papers of the Peabody Museum , 1952, 47, No. 1.

Liebowitz, H., & Pick, H. Cross-cultural and educational aspects of the Ponzo illusion. Perception and Psychophysics , 1972, 12 , 403–432.

Longabough, R. Naturalistic observations. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980.

Lonner, W. An analysis of the prepublication evaluation of cross-cultural manuscripts: Implications for future research. In R. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on learning. New York: Wiley/Halsted, 1975, pp. 305–320.

Lonner, W. The use of Western-based tests in intercultural counselling. In P. Pedersen, W. Lonner, & J. Draguns (Eds.), Counseling across cultures. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1976, pp. 170–183.

McCormack, W. Problems of American scholars in India. Asian Survey , 1976, 26, 1064 – 1080.

Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review , 1973, 80 , 252–283.

Muttagi, P. Tariff studies for water supply and sewerage services in greater Bombay. Bombay: Tata Institute of Social Sciences, 1977 (Sion-Trombay Road, Deonor, Bombay-400 088, India).

Naroll, R., & Cohen, R. (Eds.). A handbook of method in cultural anthropology. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, 1970.

Naroll, R., & Michik, G. Hologeistic studies. In H. Triandis & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980.

O’Barr, W., Spain, D., & Tessler, M. (Eds.). Survey research in Africa: Its applications and limits. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1973.

Osgood, C. Objective indicators of subjective culture. In L. Loeb-Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1977, 285 , pp. 435–150.

Osgood, C., May, W., & Miron, M. Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975.

Over, R. Explanations of geometric illusions. Psychological Bulletin , 1968, 70 , 545–562.

Pareek, U. Interviewing. In H. Triandis and J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1980.

Phillips, H. Problems of meaning and translation in field work. Human Organization , 1960, 18 , 185–192.

Piaget, J. Nécessité et signification des recherches comparatives en psychologie génétique. International Journal of Psychology , 1966, 1 , 3–13. Translated into English and reprinted in J. W. Berry & P. Dasen (Eds.), Culture and cognition. London: Methuen, 1973.

Pollnac, R. Illusion susceptibility and adaptation to the marine environment: Is the carpentered world hypothesis seaworthy? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 1977, 8 , 425 – 434.

Poortinga, Y. Some implications of three different approaches to intercultural comparison. In J. Berry & W. Lonner (Eds.), Applied cross-cultural psychology. Amsterdam: Swetz and Zeitlinger, 1975, pp. 329–332.

Price-Williams, D. R. A study concerning concepts of conservation of quantities among primitive children. Acta Psychologica , 1961, 18 , 297–305.

Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. Equivalence in cross-national research. Public Opinion Quarterly , 1966, 30 , 33–43.

Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley, 1970.

Rapoport, A. Environmental cognition in cross-cultural perspective. In G. Moore & R. Gollendge (Eds.), Environmental knowing. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1976.

Sechrest, L. On the need for experimentation in cross-cultural research. In L. Loeb-Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1977 285 , pp. 104–118.

Sechrest, L., Fay, T., & Zaidi, S. Problems of translation in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 1972 3(1), 41–56.

Segall, M., Campbell, D., & Herskovits, M. The influence of culture on visual perception. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.

Siegel, S. Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956f.

Strodtbeck, F. Considerations of meta-method in cross-cultural studies. American Anthropologist , 1964, 66 , 223–229.

Sudman, S. Applied sampling. New York: Academic Press, 1976.

Tagumpay-Castillo, G. A view from Southeast Asia. In American Research on Southeast Asian Development: Asian and American Views. New York: The Asia Society, 1968, pp. 20–49.

Talbot, L. Ecological consequences of rangeland development in Masailand, East Africa. In M. Farvar & J. Milton (Eds.), The careless technology: Ecology and international development. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, 1972, pp. 694–711.

Thorndike, R. Regression fallacies in the matched groups experiment. Psychometrika , 1943, 7 , 85–102.

Triandis, H. Approaches toward minimizing translation. In R. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research. New York: Wiley/Halsted, 1976, pp. 229–243.

Triandis, H. Subjective culture and interpersonal relations across cultures. In L. Loeb-Adler (Ed.), Issues in cross-cultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1977a, 285 , pp. 418–434.

Triandis, H. Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1977b.

Triandis, H., & Berry, J. (Eds.). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2) Methodology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980.

Triandis, H. C., Davis, E., & Takezawa, S. Some determinants of social distance among American, German, and Japanese students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1965, 2 , 540–551.

Waddell, E. The hazards of scientism: A review article. Human Ecology , 1977, 5 , 69–76.

Werner, O., & Campbell, D. Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In R. Naroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology. New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1970, pp. 398–420.

Wesley, F., & Karr, C. Problems in establishing norms for cross-cultural comparisons. International Journal of Psychology , 1966, 1 , 257–262.

White, G. (Ed.). Natural hazards: Local, national, global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Whiting, J. Effects of climate on certain cultural practices. In A. Vayda (Ed.), Environment and cultural behavior: Ecological studies in cultural anthropology. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, 1969, pp. 416–455. Originally published in W. Goodenough (Ed.), Explorations in cultural anthropology , New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964, pp. 511–544.

Whiting, J. Methods and problems in cross-cultural research. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968, pp. 693–728.

Whiting, J., Kluckhohn, E., & Anthony, A. The function of male initiation ceremonies at puberty. In E. Maccoby, T. Newcomb, & E. Hartley, Readings in social psychology , New York: Holt, 1958, pp. 359–370.

Wohlwill, J. The environment is not in the head! In W. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental design research (Vol. 2). Stroudsberg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, 1973, pp. 166–181.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

East-West Center, Culture Learning Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96848, USA

Richard W. Brislin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Irwin Altman

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Amos Rapoport

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

Joachim F. Wohlwill

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1980 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Brislin, R.W. (1980). Cross-Cultural Research Methods. In: Altman, I., Rapoport, A., Wohlwill, J.F. (eds) Environment and Culture. Human Behavior and Environment, vol 4. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0451-5_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0451-5_3

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4899-0453-9

Online ISBN : 978-1-4899-0451-5

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

More From Forbes

Cultural intelligence: navigating cross-cultural business interactions.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Joelle Machia is the Co-Founder of Wanderers Compass .

Business interactions rely on communication. Cross-cultural business was once reserved for large corporations, but in today’s global economy, many small and medium-sized businesses face a critical challenge: learning how to navigate new cross-cultural interactions.

International travel has taught me that approaching cross-cultural communication with respect and an open mind is essential. Still, I recognize that establishing mutual respect is no simple task. It takes time and effort to gain cultural intelligence.

Small teams can’t always pay for extensive training programs. They need to take a more grassroots approach. My small team has a trip to visit our Japanese colleagues planned in a few months, so we already started researching their cultural norms.

In my experience, discussion creates deep understanding. I meet with team members one-on-one to discuss cultural norms and ask specific questions about customary greetings and dining etiquette, among other things. This helps me understand my team’s level of preparedness and how I can best support their learning.

The Key Principles Of Effective Cross-Cultural Communication

• Make yourself aware Develop an understanding of the cultural norms, values and beliefs of your business partners. Being aware helps to avoid cultural mistakes that could lead to negative interactions. You should also make yourself aware of current events, at very least any major events. If you don’t know about a significant event affecting your customers’ lives, it speaks volumes about your awareness.

• Listen with eyes and earsBody language, gestures and facial expressions can often reflect something unintended to someone in another country. Listening with your eyes and ears also shows respect for their perspective and efforts made to prepare for this interaction. You don’t always have to agree, but you do have to listen.

• Develop language skillsLearn key phrases and, if needed, arrange for interpreters to be present to help bypass some of the language barriers. An interpreter (as opposed to a direct translator or apps such as Google Translate) will be able to provide cultural context to the discussion, advising you and communicating your message in culturally appropriate ways .

• Patience and adaptabilityBe patient in your communication style and adapt to cultural nuances. Communication can be a challenge in foreign cultures, but the fundamentals of business remain; your cross-cultural partners have given you their time and they deserve your patience. Adapting to cultural nuances helps build rapport and trust.

Challenges In Establishing Cultural Sensitivity

Cultural differences can sometimes test our own beliefs. It's important to remember that even if we don't agree with another culture's ideals, it's not our place to challenge them. This all comes down to respect. As a guest, it's important to refrain from directly opposing cultural norms. However, when the cultural practices of our business partners clash with our own, things can get complicated.

In our case, it might be a brand partnership where we are asking the clients to trust and invest in us. But if they demand our business supports their patriarchal view, such as requesting a man be assigned to an important account, we have to stand our ground and explain that’s not how we operate. We aren’t going to say they are wrong, as this isn’t the place to discuss ethics. It takes a certain amount of ethical relativism to handle these tricky scenarios.

Another challenge I’ve experienced is establishing a sense of community accountability within my small team. Large corporations were the first to jump on diversity and inclusion training, but I see more and more small businesses embracing cultural training. How do they do it without huge budgets and multi-week courses?

In my experience, online diversity courses are rather ineffective. Facts about a culture do not always translate to a deep understanding. Courses rarely make an effort to prompt inward thoughts or make you consider how the experience will unfold. In the case of courses with tests, I’ve even heard stories of people playing these videos in the background while scrolling on social media or cleaning the house.

Best Practices For Small To Medium Sized Businesses

In our small business, we like to present each other with scenarios that could come up and review how to handle them as a team. These scenarios are based on cultural facts, but our focus is navigating the experience. Talking through these specific scenarios has served us well many times.

Books, news articles and discussions on a one-on-one basis are low-cost options that deepen your knowledge. If you find through these discussions that more training is needed, respond to your team members' needs individually. Find relevant mentorships or training programs (not courses!) that you believe will truly help. Shift priorities as needed to give space for this learning to occur, and make sure to regularly check in with your team to foster discussion around cultural issues.

Cultural sensitivity is also something you should interview for. Building relationships with individual team members allows you to better understand their needs from a cultural perspective. It also sets a precedent for future communication which helps establish personal accountability for your team’s cross-cultural communications.

Making mistakes in cross-cultural business interactions will hurt your business. It isn’t easy, but the investment will pay dividends for years to come.

Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.