CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 408Cultural Differences and ValuesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions.

Peng, Kaiping, Nisbett, Richard E., Wong, Nancy Y. C.·1997·Psychological Methods
DOI 10.1037/1082-989x.2.4.329
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The authors argue that commonly used ranking and rating methods of value surveys may have low validity in cross-cultural value comparisons because participants' reports about values can be affected by factors such as cultural differences in the meaning of particular value terms as well as the possibility that some value judg-ments are based on social comparison or deprivation rather than on any "direct reading " of personal preferences. Four different value survey methods—ranking, rating, attitude scale, and behavioral scenario methods—were compared. It was found that ranking and rating methods of assessing differences between Chinese and Americans had low convergence with each other and with the criterion of cultural experts ' independent judgments. Attitude questions had slight and nonsig-nificant convergence with the expert judgment criterion. A scenario method of value assessment, however, yielded reasonable criterion validity. Cross-cultural value comparison has long been the main tool for understanding similarities and differ-ences among people with different cultural and ethnic

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1082-989x.2.4.329

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Human evaluations can have high variance and instability, which could be due to cultural and individual differences.

    “even human evaluations can have high variance and instability, which could be due to cultural and individual differences [155].”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [155]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Wong, N. Y. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Methods
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1997-12
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
329-344
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
DOI
10.1037/1082-989x.2.4.329
OpenAlex
W2152594618
Cited by
408
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
validity, ranking algorithms, rating methodology, attitude scales, social comparison, deprivation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review