This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.

Individualism and collectivism are some of the most widely applied concepts in cultural and cross-cultural research. They are commonly applied by scholars who use arithmetic means or sum indexes of items on a scale to examine the potential similarities and differences in samples from various countries. For many reasons, cross-cultural research implicates numerous methodological and statistical pitfalls. The aim of this article is to summarize some of those pitfalls, particularly the problem of measurement non-invariance, which stems from the different understandings of questionnaire items or even different character of constructs between countries. This potential bias is reduced by latent mean comparisons performed with Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis and the Measurement Invariance procedure within a Structural Equation Modeling framework. These procedures have been neglected by many researchers in the field of cross-cultural psychology, however. In this article, we compare ‘traditional’ (comparison of arithmetic means) and ‘invariant’ (latent mean comparison) approaches and provide necessary R source codes for replications of measurement invariance and latent mean comparisons within other scales. Both approaches are demonstrated with real data gathered on an Independent and Interdependent Self-Scale from 1386 participants across six countries (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania). Our results revealed considerable differences between the ‘invariant’ and ‘traditional’ approaches, especially in post-hoc analyses. Since ‘invariant’ results can be considered less biased, this finding suggests that the currently prevalent method of comparing the arithmetic means of cross-cultural scales of individualism and collectivism can potentially cause biased results.

Previous research on cross-cultural differences in visual attention has been inconclusive. Some studies have suggested the existence of systematic differences in global and local attention and context sensitivity, while others have produced negative or mixed results. The objective in this study was to examine the similarities and differences in holistic and analytic cognitive styles in a sample of Czech and Taiwanese university students. Two cognitive tasks were conducted: a Compound Figures Test and a free-viewing scene perception task which manipulated several focal objects and measured eye-movement patterns. An analysis of the reaction times in the Compound Figures Test showed no clear differences between either sample. An analysis of eye-movement metrics showed certain differences between the samples. While Czechs tended to focus relatively more on the focal objects measured by the number of fixations, the Taiwanese subjects spent more time fixating on the background. The results were consistent for scenes with one or two focal objects. The results of a correlation analysis of both tasks showed that they were unrelated. These results showed certain differences between the samples in visual perception but were not as systematic as the theory of holistic and analytic cognitive styles would suggest. An alternative model of cross-cultural differences in cognition and perception is discussed.

No abstract

The article examines cross-cultural differences encountered in the cognitive processing of specific cartographic stimuli. W e conducted a comparative experimental study on 98 participants from two different cultures, the first group comprising Czechs (N = 53) and the second group comprising Chinese (N = 22) and Taiwanese (N = 23). The findings suggested that the Central European participants were less collectivistic, used similar cognitive style and categorized multivariate point symbols on a map more analytically than the Asian participants. The findings indicated that culture indeed influenced human perception and cognition of spatial information. The entire research model was also verified at an individual level through structural equation modelling (SEM). Path analysis suggested that individualism and collectivism was a weak predictor of the analytic/holistic cognitive style. Path analysis also showed that cognitive style considerably predicted categorization in map point symbols.