Comparative analysis of english and american romanticism

Consideration of contextual factors
Orientation more on Exploration Hypothesis testing
(a) Structure-oriented

No
Yes
No
Yes
(1) Structure-oriented (2) Structure-oriented
psychological differences generalizability
(3) Structure-oriented ecological (4) Structure-oriented linkage contextual theory
(b) Level-oriented
(5) Level-oriented psychological (6) Level-oriented differences generalizability
(7) Level-oriented ecological (8) Level-oriented contextual linkage theory
In the second type of study, structure-oriented generalizability studies, one would accumulate data from various countries with the instrument and check to what extent the two-dimensional structure is found in each of these. In other words, the generality of the structure elsewhere is addressed.
The third type of study, a structure-oriented ecological linkage study, could be used if the two-dimensional structure would not be replicated everywhere. It is the challenge for the researcher to determine which contextual factors influence the poor replicability (e.g., two other factors have been found in some countries). We can investigate whether the countries in which the two factors were not found, differ from the countries in which the two-dimensional British structure was found in country indicators, such as average income, educational level, or extraversion.
In ecological linkage studies one often needs country indicators. The Internet is a rich source of country-level data. Examples of interesting sites are http://www.un.org and http://www.oecd.org, and www.worldbank.org (and its World Development Indicators for which a subscription is required), http://www.adherents.com/ (for religion data). Anthropologists have built a large database, the Human Relations Area File (HRAF;http://www.yale.edu/hraf), with information on a large number of cultural characteristics, ranging from birth practices to death rites, mainly from pre-industrial societies.
The fourth type, structure-oriented contextual theory-based studies, tests theories about cross-cultural differences (or similarities) in structure. In particular when the generalizability studies just described (type 2) would show that the two-dimensional structure does not hold in all cultures examined, the need will arise to learn more about the background of the differences. Structure-oriented contextual theory-based studies could test to what extent the two-dimensional model of emotion fits better in countries with a higher level of formal education, collectivism, higher proportions of religious people, with less stringent socialization patterns, to name but a few (arbitrary) examples; in general, in structure-oriented contextual theory-based studies a researcher tests hypotheses that could explain the differences in fit.
Table 2.
Description for Each Type of Study
Type of study Source and description
Source: Russell, J. A., & Sato, K. (1995). Comparing emotion words between languages. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 384-391.

Structure-oriented
psychological
differences
Description: The authors studied the meaning and equivalence of emotion words among English speaking, Japanese speaking, and Cantonese speaking individuals. A set of 14 photographs of faces was shown to the subjects and they were asked to judge to what extent the face shown in the picture was an expression of each of 14 emotion words. For any two language groups, a correlation index for an emotion word can be calculated based on the ratings of these groups on the 14 photographs. The higher the correlation, the more similar is the meaning of the emotion word across the two languages. Three comparison groups could be formed: English/Japanese, English/Cantonese, and Japanese/Cantonese, and these three groups could be compared on the correlations of the 14 emotion words. Results showed that the correlations were similar across the three comparison groups for 12 of the 14 emotion words

Structure-oriented
generalizability
Source: McCrae, R. R., Terraciano, A., & 79 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 407-425.