Fiske Alan Page
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles 90095-1553, USA.
Psychol Bull. 2002 Jan;128(1):78-88. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.78.
Analyzing national and ethnic differences in individualism and collectivism, D. Oyserman, H. M. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeier (2002) showed that small differences in scales or samples produce markedly divergent results, challenging the validity of these constructs. The author examines the following limitations of research on individualism and collectivism: It treats nations as cultures and culture as a continuous quantitative variable; conflates all kinds of social relations and distinct types of autonomy; ignores contextual specificity in norms and values; measures culture as the personal preferences and behavior reports of individuals; rarely establishes the external validity of the measures used; assumes cultural invariance in the meaning of self-reports and anchoring and interpretation of scales; and reduces culture to explicit, abstract verbal knowledge.
D. 奥伊泽曼、H. M. 库恩和M. 凯默尔迈尔(2002年)在分析个人主义和集体主义方面的国家与种族差异时发现,量表或样本中的微小差异会产生显著不同的结果,这对这些概念的有效性提出了挑战。作者审视了个人主义和集体主义研究存在的以下局限性:将国家视为文化,将文化视为连续的定量变量;混淆了各种社会关系和不同类型的自主性;忽视规范和价值观中的情境特殊性;将文化衡量为个人的个人偏好和行为报告;很少确立所使用测量方法的外部有效性;假定自我报告的含义以及量表的锚定和解释具有文化不变性;以及将文化简化为明确、抽象的语言知识。