Journal article
Improving Interpretability of Subjective Assessments About Psychological Phenomena: A Review and Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis
Review of general psychology, v 23(3), pp 293-319
01 Sep 2019
Featured in Collection : UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
Abstract
Attempts to understand subjectivity have historically involved distinguishing the strengths of subjective methods (e.g., survey ratings from informants) from those of alternative methods (e.g., observational/performance-based tasks). Yet a movement is underway in Psychology that considers the merits of intersubjectivity: Understanding the space between two or more informant's subjective impressions of a common person or phenomenon. In mental health research, understanding differences between subjective impressions have less to do with informants' characteristics and more to do with the social environments or contexts germane to the people or phenomena examined. Our article focuses on one relatively understudied social environment: the cultural context. We draw from seminal work on psychological universals, as well as emerging work on cultural norms (i.e., cultural tightness) to understand intersubjectivity effects through a cross-cultural lens. We report a meta-analysis of 314 studies of intersubjectivity effects in mental health, revealing that (a) this work involves independent research teams in more than 30 countries, (b) informants rating a target person's mental health (e.g., parent and teacher ratings of a child's behavior) commonly provide diverging estimates of that person's mental health, and (c) greater convergence between subjective reports relates to a "tighter" or more norms-bound culture. Our article illustrates strategies for understanding divergence between subjective reports. In particular, we highlight theoretical and methodological frameworks for examining patterns of divergence between subjective reports in relation to data from nonsubjective methods. We also describe how research on intersubjectivity informs efforts to improve the interpretability of subjective assessments in multiple subdisciplines in Psychology.
Metrics
Details
- Title
- Improving Interpretability of Subjective Assessments About Psychological Phenomena: A Review and Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis
- Creators
- Andres De los Reyes - University of Maryland, College ParkMatthew D. Lerner - Stony Brook UniversityLauren M. Keeley - University of Maryland, College ParkRebecca J. Weber - Stony Brook UniversityDeborah A. G. Drabick - Temple UniversityJill Rabinowitz - Johns Hopkins UniversityKimberly L. Goodman
- Publication Details
- Review of general psychology, v 23(3), pp 293-319
- Publisher
- Sage
- Number of pages
- 27
- Grant note
- SES-1461392 / National Science Foundation; National Science Foundation (NSF) R01MH110585 / National Institute of Mental Health; United States Department of Health & Human Services; National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA; NIH National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) R324A180032 / Institute of Education Sciences; US Department of Education; Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Language
- English
- Academic Unit
- A.J. Drexel Autism Institute
- Web of Science ID
- WOS:000476548100002
- Scopus ID
- 2-s2.0-85067926218
- Other Identifier
- 991021862259304721
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:
InCites Highlights
Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:
- Collaboration types
- Domestic collaboration
- Web of Science research areas
- Psychology, Multidisciplinary