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

PsyCh Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olwen Bedford ◽  
Yi‐Hui Christine Huang ◽  
Kenichi Ito
2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 477-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi-Hui Huang ◽  
Olwen Bedford ◽  
Yin Zhang

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.


Methodology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 156-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith A. Markus

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.


1992 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-385
Author(s):  
Terri Gullickson

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth T. Wang ◽  
G.E. Kawika Allen ◽  
Hannah Stokes ◽  
Han Na Suh

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document