An assessment of the relational orientation framework for Chinese societies: Scale development and Chinese relationalism

The relational orientation framework for examining culture in Chinese societies

Culture & Psychology ◽

10.1177/1354067x17729362 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 24 (4) ◽

pp. 477-490 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Yi-Hui Huang ◽

Olwen Bedford ◽

Yin Zhang

Keyword(s):

Social Exchange ◽

Psychological Functioning ◽

Social Exchange Theory ◽

Structuration Theory ◽

Methodological Individualism ◽

Cross Cultural ◽

Cultural Frameworks ◽

Chinese Societies ◽

Relational Factor ◽

Relational Orientation

Individualist and collectivist cultural frameworks have been the dominant research paradigm in cross-cultural studies despite evidence of conceptual and measurement problems with collectivism. We propose a new theoretical framework of psychological functioning in Chinese societies that captures some of the useful elements of collectivism without its drawbacks. The relational orientation framework takes into account the variety of relations in an individual’s social and cultural environment. The model comprises a structural–relational factor grounded in sociological structuration theory and relational orientation characteristics, and a rational–relational factor that captures important aspects of agency based on social exchange theory. We discuss the framework’s role in providing an alternative to methodological individualism for research in Chinese societies.

Download Full-text

Three Conceptual Impediments to Developing Scale Theory for Formative Scales

Methodology ◽

10.1027/1614-2241/a000154 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 14 (4) ◽

pp. 156-164 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Keith A. Markus

Keyword(s):

Scale Development ◽

Item Analysis ◽

Model Fitting ◽

Item Bias ◽

Validity Evidence ◽

Scale Theory ◽

Underlying Theory ◽

Standard Scale ◽

Item Scores

Abstract. Bollen and colleagues have advocated the use of formative scales despite the fact that formative scales lack an adequate underlying theory to guide development or validation such as that which underlies reflective scales. Three conceptual impediments impede the development of such theory: the redefinition of measurement restricted to the context of model fitting, the inscrutable notion of conceptual unity, and a systematic conflation of item scores with attributes. Setting aside these impediments opens the door to progress in developing the needed theory to support formative scale use. A broader perspective facilitates consideration of standard scale development concerns as applied to formative scales including scale development, item analysis, reliability, and item bias. While formative scales require a different pattern of emphasis, all five of the traditional sources of validity evidence apply to formative scales. Responsible use of formative scales requires greater attention to developing the requisite underlying theory.

Download Full-text