Advantages of the Comparative Method of Anthropology 1 - CiteSeerX

117

Advantages of the ComparativeMethod of Anthropology1

Ronald P. Rohner

Ronald P. Rohner (Ph.D., Stanford) is currently Visiting Professor ofAnthropology and Human Development and Senior Research Scientist,Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth Development, at The CatholicUniversity of America. He is the author of numerous journal articles andreviews and of several books, including They Love Me, They Love MeNot: A Worldwide Study of the Effects of Parental Acceptance and Re-jection (HRAF Press 1975).

Reflecting anthropology’s deep idiographic disposition, approximately80 percent of anthropological research falls on the idiographic node of the idiographic-nomothetic continuum. Increasing numbers of anthropolo-gists, however, are beginning to recognize the importance of cross-cultural,comparative, nomothetic research. Comparativists use five principal meth-odologies in their research. These research designs vary in their relativepower, i.e. in their ability to eliminate false hypotheses about worldwiderelationships. The power as well as the advantages and disadvantages ofeach methodology are discussed.

[Accepted for publication: September 1976.]

In 1896, Franz Boas wrote what is perhaps the most influentialpaper in the history of American anthropology.’ His (1896)article on &dquo;The Limitations of the Comparative Method of

Anthropology&dquo; changed the course of ethnological inquiry fromthat time forward. The paper struck a fatal blow to the nine-

teenth-century evolutionists’ misuse of the comparative method,but it also prejudiced most of American anthropology against allforms of generalizing-bcyond generalizations based on small-scale, regional comparisons. In place of the comparative method,which was associated in the nineteenth century principally withevolutionism, Boas proposed the &dquo;historical method,&dquo; and withthis proposal he ushered in a paradigm of ethnological researchthat dominated American anthropology throughout the next

quarter-century. As a result of the excesses of the nineteenth

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ccr.sagepub.com/

118

century evolutionist perspective and, to a lesser extent, of the

twentieth-century historicalist-diffusionist bent initiated by Boas,comparative research went into profound disrepute within Amer-ican anthropology-a state from which it has not yet recovered.Both Boas and tB1alinowski made ethnographic ficldwork the

backbone of proper anthropological inquiry, but, by its very

nature, fieldwork is particularistic in its concentration on a

specific problem among a specific people, in a specific location,and in a specific time period. Resulting from this emphasis onfieldwork, the concepts of &dquo;culture&dquo; and &dquo;cultural relativism&dquo;assumed the highest salience in American anthropology. It was

not long before the concept of cultural relativism was escalatedinto &dquo;radical&dquo; cultural relativism, a doctrine which states that

every culture is different, therefore noncomparable. And it was

not long before the allied concept of &dquo;functionalism&dquo; was dis-

torted into &dquo;extreme&dquo; functionalism, a dogma asserting that be-havior within one society cannot be compared with behavior ina second society. More recently, the concept &dquo;emic&dquo; has beenintroduced into sociocultural anthropology. Some anthropolo-gists have extended this construct into an &dquo;uncompromisingemicist&dquo; perspective, a position which states that only the con-ceptual categories recognized by a native people themselvesshould be admissible in anthropological inquiry.

All these &dquo;-isms&dquo; have worked collectively to produce a deepidiographic bias in American anthropology (see Rohner 1975b:6-17). Idiographers tend to be suspicious, often antagonistic-sometimes rightfully so-toward the generalizing interests ofthe few nomotheticists or generalizers who have managed to

endure throughout the last seventy-five years of anthropology.The idiographic bias makes a nomothetic science of man impos-sible, because it denies the credibility of comparisons and gen-eralization across cultural boundaries. The idiographic bias not-withstanding, however, a growing number of anthropologists inrecent years have begun to join nomotheticists in the other be-havioral sciences in recognizing the importance of cross-cultural,comparative, and generalizing research. Now, three-quarters ofa century after Boas’ landmark paper on &dquo;The Limitations of the

Comparative Method of Anthropology,&dquo; it seems timely to present



119

an alternative viewpoint on the &dquo;Advantages of the Compara-tive Method of Anthropology.&dquo;Any study that compares two or more cultural systems, parts

of systems, or samples of individuals within one or more popula-tions is a comparative study. When this work is done by an an-thropologist or within the framework of anthropological inquiry,however defined, it becomes &dquo;comparative anthropology.&dquo; Usingthis definition, it is often difficult to distinguish comparativeanthropology from comparative sociology or from cross-culturalpsychology, or from the comparative interest of any one of theother behavioral sciences. Sometimes the only discernible dis-tinction is that the work is done by someone who identifieshimself as an anthropologist rather than as a psychologist, asociologist, a political scientist, or whatever. This usage is neitherwhimsical nor capricious, but reflects a growing rapprochementalong some of the leading edges of conventional academic dis-ciplines.

Research interests in comparative anthropology range fromlocally descriptive, nongeneralizing (i.e. idiographic) to world-wide generalizing (i.e. nomothetic). But in all cases, compara-tive anthropology is characterized by the explicit and preferablysystematic study of similarities and differences among two ormore populations.3 3

Rather than being mutually exclusive, as is often assumed,the idiographic-nomothetic duality actually forms a continuumwith at least three identifiable nodes: idiographic, idiographic-comparative, and nomothetic. The concept &dquo;nomothetic&dquo; is it-

self a matter of degree, from purely localized generalizations-often based on idiographic comparisons-to worldwide or species-wide generalizations. Not all nomothetic inquiry is based on

comparison. Leach (1961: 1-27) and L6vi-Strauss (1963), for

example, claim that general laws may be and should be formu-lated from a single case; but other scholars, especially those in-terested in scientific methodology, argue that lawfulness is

revealed only by repetition or recurrence. The single and per-haps exceptional case is fortuitous and not amenable to com-

prehension by laws. The truly unique cannot be treated withinthe framework of science. Without comparison, one has no



120

basis for distinguishing genuine causal-functional relations fromphenomena which are only coincidentally together ( see Kbbben1970: 586). The kind of noncomparative, nomothetic inquirysupported by Levi-Strauss and others is of little concern to

comparative anthropology, except insofar as conclusions comingfrom this work are susceptible to cross-cultural, comparativcverification or falsification.The idiographic node of the idiographic-nomothetic continuum

is particularistic, usually descriptive, noncomparative, and non-generalizing. Each idiographer tries to present his case in sucha way as to preserve its special qualities, its particularistic fea-tures localized in time and space. The unit of analysis-the cul-tural system, social institution, or the individual-is sometimestreated as unique, literally as a class by itself. Idiographic re-search is thus part of natural history, in that it attempts to

establish true statements about particular events, processes, andsituations. As already noted, the idiographic orientation repre-sents a great part of the writing in anthropology-probably thegreatest part-even though most anthropologists do sometimestalk about generalizing.4 The idiographic orientation per se is

of little further interest to comparativists or to nomotheticists.The second node, idiographic-comparison, represents the low-

est level of inquiry in comparative anthropology. The minimalintent of comparison is to establish likenesses or differencesbetween or among units. A good deal of comparative inquiry is

also concerned with generalizing, but generalizations derivedfrom idiographic comparisons hold true only for the specificunits-cultures, institutions, or individuals-that are compared.To what extent one can generalize beyond the units comparedis entirely problematic.

Strictly speaking, even though they are nongeneralizing andnoncomparative (i.e. idiographic), ethnographic case studies areby implication the most primitive form of idiographic compari-son, in that ethnographic description carries the implications ofcomparison between some feature of the &dquo;native&dquo; life studiedand the cultural system to which the ethnographer belongs.Anthropologists engage in two classes of case-study research.The holistic-depictive approach (Bennett and Thaiss 1967) is the



121

best known, at least outside anthropology. This is Malinowskian

ethnography, wherein the fieldworkcr attempts to describe in

a holistic manner the culture of &dquo;his&dquo; people. The other, andmore common, form of case study is the institutional or specialtopics approach, wherein the anthropologist studies a specializedproblem among a culturally organized population, for exampleNavaho kinship, Gurage nutrition, Dani warfare, or Menominiacculturation.

Unlike ethnographic case studies, the controlled comparisonor concomitant variation study is explicitly comparative. In thesestudies, the investigator usually locates two or more neighbor-ing, but sometimes distant, populations in which one of twoconditions is true: (1) relevant variables in the sample popula-tions vary, but other factors are said to remain constant; (2)relevant variables in the sample populations remain constant,while all other factors are said to vary. Redfield’s (1941) studyof four community types in Yucatan is a classic anthropologicalillustration of the first type of concomitant variation study. Thefour communities varied in population size: one was a largecity, one a medium-sized town, the third was a large village,and the fourth a small village. In all other respects, these settle-ments were said to be alike. Redfield then attempted to deter-mine what factors varied concomitantly with population size.The work of Murphy and Steward (1956) illustrates the sec-

ond type of concomitant variation study, where relevant vari-

ables remain constant while others vary. Murphy and Stewarddid a controlled comparison of parallel processes of accultura-tion among the Mundurucu of Brazil and the Montagnais in

subarctic North America. The two societies were alike in that

they represented the same level of sociocultural integration-i.e. both were politically autonomous local units. Moreover,both were exposed to similar acculturative pressures, namelyto outside commercial influences. In other respects, the two so-cieties were quite different. The Mundurucu, for example, weretropical forest hunters and horticulturists, living in semiperma-nent villages; whereas the Montagnais were subarctic, nomadichunters of large migratory game. Murphy and Steward com-pared these two societies, showing that even though they were



122

different in most respects-except for the critical condition of

being at the same level of sociocultural integration-they re-

sponded in similar ways to similar acculturativc pressures.Regional trait distribution studies, including the idiographic

statistical method pioneered by Boas (1894, 1895) in his work

on Northwest Coast folk tales, form a second class of true idio-graphic-comparative inquiry. These studies involve collectingdata on a list of traits from all the tribes of a region, or evenwithin a continent, and then constructing an intercorrelation

matrix, in which each trait is correlated with all other traits.

From a cluster analysis or factor analysis of this matrix, it is

possible to discern geographic regions where groupings of traits-i.e. trait complexes&horbar;cluster. In the history of anthropology,one of the important goals of this method has been to helpreconstruct, at least inferentially, the culture history of a specificregion or of certain traits or tribes. Driver and Massey’s (1957)&dquo;Comparative Studies of North American Indians&dquo; is one of themost extensive applications of this method.--’

Nomothetic comparison is the third node on the idiographic-nomothetic continuum. As already indicated, the extensivenessof comparison and of generalization is variable within the nomo-thetic-comparison range of the continuum. Nomothetic-compara-tive inquiry sometimes yields purely localized generalizationsthat are only indistinctly different from the conclusions of thebasically nongeneralizing, idiographic-comparative node. At theother extreme, some nomothetic-comparative research strives toestablish lawlike, worldwide, universalist generalizations, or

principles of human behavior.The category of nomothetic-comparative inquiry contains two

distinguishable, but sometimes related, classes of research. Thefirst, hologeistic research, or cross-cultural survey research, as

it is often called, is oriented toward worldwide correlationaltests of hypotheses or theories. The hologeistic method employsa worldwide sample of societies from the ethnographic recordof anthropology to statistically test hypotheses about the trans-cultural relationship between two or more psychological, social,or cultural variables. Naroll (1973: 354-55) identifies five sub-

types of hologeistic studies: a lwlocllltllral study is a &dquo;hologeistic



123

study which draws upon all, or substantially all, human cul-tures known in the last four centuries&dquo;; a llOlonational study is

a &dquo;hologeistic study which draws exclusively on modern nations,&dquo;a liolohistorical study is a &dquo;hologeistic study which draws ex-

clusively on preindustrialized, traditional, record-keeping so-

cieties,&dquo; a holoarcheological study is a &dquo;hologeistic study whichdraws on the archeological remains of nonrecord-keeping so-

cieties,&dquo; and a holoethnohistorical study is a &dquo;hologeistic studywhich draws on the records made by outside observers of thehistory of a nonrecord-keeping society.&dquo;6 More than 425 holo-cultural studies and nearly 600 holonational studies have beencompleted so far (see Naroll, O’Leary, and Sigelman 1974),but very few holohistorical studies arc in print. As of July 1974,only one holoracheological study had been done, and only oneholoethnohistorical study had been reported (Naroll, O’Leary,and Sigelman 1974: 3). Holocultural and holonational methodshave been used to investigate a wide range of issues, includingkinship and marriage, cultural evolution, parent-child relations,personality development, deviant behavior, economic activities,political structure, and religion.The universalist approach is the second class of research

within the category of nomothetic-comparative inquiry. Theuniversalist approach is a multimethod and usually interdisci-

plinary research strategy that has as its objective the establish-ment of scientifically derived generalizations or principles abouthuman behavior-generalizations that are specieswide in their

applicability (Rohner 1975b). (The central characteristics ofthe universalist approach are detailed later.) Universalist prin-ciples are of two basic types: universally valid, descriptive state-ments and universal, causal-functional relationships. These twotypes are described in greater detail below. A good deal of myown research ( Rohner 1970, 1975a, 1975b, n.d., 1976; Rohner,DeWalt, and Ness 1973; Rohner and Katz 1970) on the world-wide antecedents and consequences of parental acceptance andrejection falls within the category of universalist research. So,too, does the work of some other anthropologists, such as

Berlin, who is concerned with universal semantic processes in

color lexicons and in cthnobiological lexicons (Berlin and Kay



124

1969). Researchers outside anthropology have also pursued uni-versalist research. Some principal concerns here include the de-velopment and structure of human cognitive processes (see, forexample, Piaget 1970; Dasen 1972), the evolution of hominidsocial bonds (see, for example, Bowlby 1969; Freeman 1966;Freedman 1968; Hamburg 1968), the purported instinctual basisof human aggression (see, for example, Lorenz 1966; Ardrey1966; Morris 1967; Freud 1930), the evolution of sex differencesin behavior (see, for example, Goldberg 1973; Freedman 1968;Rohner 1976; Tiger 1969), the evolution of a universal culturcpattern (see, for example, Sebeok 1968; Keesing 1973; Fox 1970),and a universalist-evolutionary orientation to linguistics (see,for example, Chomsky 1965; Greenberg 1975; Jakobson 1968;Lenneberg 1964; Osgood et al. 1975). All of these researchershave in common an interest in the evolution of human social,emotional, or cognitive behavior ( as distinguished from humanmorphology). Not all universalist research, however, is construedfrom an evolutionary, biological, or ethnological point of view,although it is probably true that at some point in all such re-search the facts of biology, genetics, or evolution must be

recognized.Worldwide, generalizing research in the nomothetic-compara-

tive mode represents but a small percentage of the work donein sociocultural anthropology today. In fact, Table 1 clearlyexposes anthropology’s idiographic bias. Eighty percent of an-thropological inquiry in 1973, 1974, and 1975, as measured inthree leading anthropology journals, employs the idiographiccase-study approach-mainly of the institutional or special topicsvariety. Comparative research, as defined by the idiographic-comparative and the nomothetic-comparative modes, representsonly about 20 percent of the work done currently in generalanthropology. True nomothetic-comparative inquiry is only aboutone-fourth of that.

Table 1 does not mirror accurately the absolute number ofhologeistic studies appearing regularly in behavioral science

periodicals, because the majority of these studies are publishedin journals other than the American Anthropologist, the Amer-ican Ethnologist, and Ethnology, from which the data in Table



125

Table 1. Classes of Research in Sociocultural Anthropology,1973 Through 1975’

’ Data in Table 1 are based on 207 articles published in the AmericaAnthropologist, American Etl11101ogist, and Ethnology from 1973 through1975. Evelyn C. Rohner coded 100 of the articles in the American Anthro-I)ologi.st and in Ethnology published during 1973 and 1974; Patricia A.

Jehle coded 72 articles in the American Etlitiologist, from its inception in

1974 through 1975, and 35 articles in the American Anthropologist andin Ethnology published in 1975. Only data-oriented papers derivative in

some way from fieldwork were tabulated. Theoretical articles were omitted,as were papers outside sociocultural anthropology.

1 were obtained. Nonetheless, the table does reflect the factthat the proportion of hologeistic and universalist research tothe conventional and dominant research paradigm of generalsociocultural anthropology is still definitely in a minority position.Data collected by Lewis (1966) in 1956 from an examination

of 220 journal articles, dissertations, and books show that, insome respects, the anthropological zeitgeist has changed littlein the past twenty years. For example Table 1 shows that al-most 95 percent of anthropological research today is either

idiographic or idiographic-comparative, but not nomothetic-com-



126

parative. Lewis found that about 75 percent of all comparative,studies from 1950 through 1954 were conducted within a singlecontinent, nation, culture area, or local cultural group, thus

showing a historical continuity extending to the present in an-thropology’s s preferencc for small-scale comparison (i.e. idio-

graphic-comparison ) rather than large-scale comparisons (i.e.nomothetic comparison) anthropologists make any sys-tematic comparisons at all. Lewis’ data also show that about 13

percent of the research done in comparative anthropology wasessentially hologcistic, or what he called &dquo;random or globalcomparisons&dquo; based on library research ( Lewis 1966: 61). Theintervening twenty years have shown a significant change in theincidence of hologeistic research. Now 26 percent of the pub-lished work in comparatice anthropology is hologeistic as mea-sured in Table 1, but the table underestimates dramatically thetrue contribution of the hologeistic method to comparativeanthropology.

I now want to rotate by 45° the axis of my argument andlook at the methodologies employed by anthropologists doingcomparative research, a topic that cross-cuts both modes of

comparative research, i.e. idiographic-comparison and nomo-

thetic-comparison.Before continuing, however, I need to amplify the concept

of methodology as I use it here. Mcthodology refers to dis-

tinguishable classes, traditions, or paradigms of research, eachwith its own natural history, employing a specific logic andbasic assumptions or epistomology, and each comprising oneor more discrete methods (i.e. research procedures), such as

questionnaires, field schedules, interview schedules, or behaviorobservations. Every methodology has certain advantages anddisadvantages, strengths and weaknesses, as well as the poten-tial for certain kinds of bias. Each yields certain kinds of in-formation but does not yield other kinds. Just as the kind offish one catches depends on the net that is used, and the netthat is employed is designed to catch the fish one values, so

the kind of data one collects depends on his methodology, andthe methodology is selected to gather the kind of data onevalues. Experimental design, sample survey research, the holo-



127

geistic method, and participant observation field research are

all illustrations of different methodologies.One of the salient characteristics of every methodology is its

relative power. The power of a methodology in comparativeresearch is defined as its ability to eliminate false hypothesesabout human behavior in trorldtcide perspective. The greaterthe capability of a methodology to eliminate a false worldwidehypothesis, the greater is its power. The concept power as it

is applied to comparative research methodology is also familiarin statistical inference, in a somewhat more delimited sense.

There, power refers to Type II or Beta error, i.e. the risk of

failing to reject an alternative hypothesis (vs. the null hypothe-sis) when the hypothesis is actually false. The power of a

methodology is variable. Some methodologies have low power,and others have increasingly higher levels of power. The re-

mainder of this paper reviews a rank ordering of the power ofthe principal methodologies or approaches used in comparativeanthropology. Table 2 sets out graphically the power-rankingof the major approaches in comparative inquiry in socioculturalanthropology.

As indicated earlier, the case study approach is the most

primitive methodology used in comparative anthropology.7 Sincethe case study approach is essentially noncomparative-or com-parative only by implication-one can seldom tell how repre-sentative of some larger population an individual case really is.

Therefore, within the context of a probability model, the casestudy method has low-virtually zero-power.8 Since the prob-ability model assumes as a matter of course that exceptionswill occur, a case that fails to support an hypothesis cannot domore than make one wonder about the veracity of the hypothe-

Table 2. Poicer Ranking of Approaches to Comparative Anthropology



128

sis, or about the representativeness of the case. On the other

hand, within the context of a mechanical model, where a singleexception to a theory or hypothesis is sufficient to discredit thattheory, the casc-study method has great power, in that a singledeviant case falsifies a theory. Few mechanical models havebeen developed recently in comparative anthropology, but manywere advanced in the history of behavioral science. G. S. Hall

(1904), for example, postulated the worldwide invariance ofadolescent stress, and Freud (1950) postulated the invarianceof the Oedipus complex. In both instances, critical ethnographiccases were marshaled by other scholars to discredit the idea ofspecieswide invariance (see, for example, Mead 1928 and Mal-inowski 1927, respectively ) . Since mechanical models are rare incomparative anthropology, the remainder of this paper concen-trates on methodologies for idiographic-comparisons and nomo-thetic-comparisons within the context of a probability model.The controlled comparison, or concomitant variation study,

and the regional trait-distribution study both fall within the

idiographic-comparison sector of the idiographic-nomothetic con-tinuum. Accordingly, they both have low power. In addition,some concomitant variation studies and some regional trait-

distribution studies-for example the regional study interestedin establishing taxonomies (e.g. Driver 1961; see Naroll 1968:

242 )-are basically nongeneralizing but nonetheless comparative.This form of comparative study has very low power, even

though it may be useful for discovering new variations in be-havior and it may also help to delineate working hypothesesabout the interaction between variables. Other concomitant vari-ation and regional trait-distribution studies are at least min-

imally generalizing in intent. To this extent they share charac-teristics with the nomothetic-comparison node, and accordinglyhave somewhat higher but still seriously restricted power. Theyhave an advantage over the idiographic methodologies describedup to now, in being able to establish correlations within or

among the various units compared, but rarely can generaliza-tions be extended confidently beyond these bounds.

Concomitant variation studies are frequently based on pairedcomparisons, but a comparison of two natural cases cannot be



129

used for hypothesis testing. In fact, such a comparison is un-

interpretable, even though it may be in other respects a fruitfulsource of insight (cf. Campbell 1961). The concomitant varia-tion approach also has other weaknesses contributing to its

low power. One of the most serious of these is the inability ofthe methodology to distinguish idiographic from worldwide no-mothetic correlations. The question here is &dquo;whether the cor-

relations observed might not reflect artifacts of culture-trait

borrowing from a common source rather than fundamental ten-dencies in the nature of society or culture&dquo; (Naroll 1968: 241).

Regional trait-distribution studies are usually based on moresystematic and formal data collection procedures and are to

this extent more sound methodologically than concomitant varia-tion studies. But trait-distribution studies, too, have the problemof distinguishing regionally-specific correlations from worldwidecausal-functional relationships. Thus, the regional trait-distribu-tion methodology is unable to falsify unambiguously a world-wide hypothesis. In other respects, it shares much in commonwith the hologeistic method.With the hologeistic method, comparative anthropology jumps

to the nomothetic-comparative sector of the continuum, andfrom low power to high power. In fact, the hologeistic methodis the most powerful, single methodology yet developed forworldwide hypothesis-testing research. The method is also themost complex single methodology that is used in worldwidecomparative research? As indicated earlier, the hologeistic meth-od draws on a worldwide sample of societies for the purposeof statistically testing hypotheses about the transcultural rela-

tionship between two or more variables. Insufficient attentionto five critical problems often mars the results of hologeisticresearch. Among these issues are: the problem of sample selec-tion (including questions about the sampling universe, samplingunits, sampling procedures, and tests for coder bias); definitionand operationalization of variables; tests for ethnographer biasor data quality control; and hypothesis formulation and testing(including statistical procedures and other matters of researchdesign related to data analysis-e.g. the &dquo;mudsticking&dquo; problem,regional testing of hypotheses, and causality of correlations).



130

In the remainder of this discussion of the hologeistic method,I will concentrate on the holocultural method, because this is

the most common type of hologeistic study published. Eth-

nographies on which the holocultural method is based describethe typical behavior of a population of people. The methodthus measures regularities in standardized or customary behaviorwithin total communities the world over. For this reason, theholocultural method is outstanding for distinguishing culturallyconditioned from universal causal-functional relationships. Tothis extent, the holocultural method has high power, but evenwhen used properly-which happens infrequently-it is not themost powerful methodology for worldwide, comparative research.One of the reasons for this qualification is that it has, like anysingle methodology, certain limitations for worldwide, compara-tive, and generalizing research. Its great strength for measuringthe regularities in behavior within total communities is at thesame time a limitation, in that the methodology can give noinformation about intracultural variability in behavior of indi-viduals.The universalist approach is at the extreme nomothetic end

of the idiographic-nomothetic continuum, and it is also themost powerful methodology used in comparative anthropology-or, for that matter, in any of the other comparative behavioralsciences. Because it is a multimethod research strategy, it is not

marred by the weaknesses of a single methodology. In fact, it

controls for the weaknesses of each component methodologythrough a process called the triangulation or convergence of

methodologies, which will be described later. By its basic design,the universalist approach attempts to establish scientifically de-rived generalizations about human behavior, i.e. principles ofbehavior that are specieswide in their applicability. Generali-zations coming from the universalist methodology may take theform either of universal causal-functional relationships or of

universally valid descriptive statements. The latter form of gen-eralization is not concerned simply with the theoretically blandcultural universals that anthropologists describe in every intro-ductory textbook-for example &dquo;all societies have a form of sub-sistence economy,&dquo; or the &dquo;family in one form or another is



131

universal,&dquo; or an &dquo;incest taboo is found everywhere,&dquo; or &dquo;all

people have some form of religious belief.&dquo; Rather, the univer-salist approach is more interested in comprehending the mech-anisms or processes creating specific universals-e.g. Why is an

incest taboo universal? Within this level of generalization, theuniversalist approach asks not simply &dquo;~Vhat are the majordescriptive facts of human life?&dquo; but &dquo;Why are these descriptivefacts true?&dquo;

Universal causal-functional relationships, the second level ofgeneralization, deal with a somewhat different issue. Here theconcern is with worldwide relationships among phenomena.These relationships may be causal in the sense that one variableproduces a commensurate change in a second variable, or theymay be functional in the sense that a change in one variable is

associated-but perhaps only indirectly-with a commensurate

change in a second variable. In all forms of the universalist ap-proach, however, scholars want to be sure that the discoveredrelationships are valid for all mankind-either within all human

populations or among all populations where certain limitingconditions exist. In other words, we must be assured that theserelationships are not simply an artifact or special circumstanceof the unique setting (e.g. specific culture, gene pool, local

region) in which the relationship was discovered.The universalist approach comprises two complementary facets

-a conceptual facet and a methodological facet. Conceptually,and at the highest level of abstraction, the universalist approachasks the philosophically based question: &dquo;What does it mean

to be a human being?&dquo; The universalist approach asks aboutthe nature of human nature or, more specifically, about re-

searchable (i.e. operationalizable) features of &dquo;human nature.&dquo;From this point of view, then, it should be clear that the uni-versalist approach is not interested simply in the behavior ofWhite Canadians, Black Americans, Kwakiutl Indians, or Turkishpeasants-or even about a comparison between any two or moreof these groupings-but rather in mankind as a whole. In orderto do universalist research, scholars must make basic assump-tions about the nature of man. Principally they must make asupposition comparable to the one anthropologists call the &dquo;psy-



132

chic unity of man.&dquo; They must assume that all normal (i.e. non-pathological) humans are subject to the same developmentaltendencies and, additionally, that at birth all normal humansshare the same general capacities for thought, feeling, and action.

This emphasis on universals does not mean that the uni-

versalist approach disregards significant cognitive, emotional,or other behavioral differences among human populations. In-

deed, an interest in human variability is the complement ofthe search for universals. For example the thought processesof young children may prove to be qualitatively different in

some respects from the cognitive processes of adults, but thecognitive functioning of children at a certain age may turnout to be more or less invariant throughout our species. If thisis true, these developmental likenesses and differences wouldbe especially interesting to the universalist approach. Unlike theidiographic or particularistic orientation, which often focuseson superficial local differences (e.g. local &dquo;cultural&dquo; differences),the universalist interest in variability relates to significant differ-ences in the behavior repertoires of subpopulations within ourtotal species.

Methodologically, the universalist approach does not dictate

any given procedure or class of research techniques. Indeed,quite different methods are appropriate for asking differentkinds of questions. The universalist approach does presume,however, the presence of at least minimum standards of scien-tific inquiry. The generalizations that are to be elevated to thelevel of universalist principles must be able to withstand sci-entific scrutiny: they must be supported by empirical evidencethat was collected in an objective and impersonal manner, andthe proccdures used must be open to public review and replica-tion, thereby assuring that the purported principles are capableof verification or falsification by independent investigators. In

addition, investigators must employ only variables and proce-dures that are transculturally equivalent, thus providing assur-ance that the variables can be measured directly by the sameprocedures in different societies, and that the measures can becompared (see Sears 1961; Brislin et al. 1973: 13-14, 24-29).These minimal requirements are needed in order to distinguish



133

appealing, but nonetheless speculative, specieswide generaliza-tions from scientifically-derived generalizations.An additional point regarding the methodological and concep-

tual mix comprising the universalist approach is the need for

comparative research. Insofar as behavioral scientists are inter-ested in establishing valid, specieswide generalizations about

man, then their research design must consider relevant varia-tions found throughout the specics-or perhaps simply find outwhether any variation exists with respect to the behavior in

question. In either case, the investigator will be led to some-

thing like a comparative, worldwide sampling design in his re-

search. The rationale here is that if behavioral scientists want

to be confident about the specieswide generalizability of theirprinciples, they are obligated to show that the principles canindeed be generalized beyond the population or cognate popu-lations from which they were originally derived or discovered.This point has been emphatically repeated on numerous occa-sions both in anthropology and elsewhere, especially in cross-

cultural psychology (see, for example, Brislin et al. 1973: 143-44;Dawson 1971: 291; DeVos and Hippler 1969: 324; Jahoda 1970:58-59 ) .The past decade has witnessed a dramatically mounting in-

terest in worldwide or specieswide generalizations. Many ofthese generalizations are speculative, but others approach thestandards of scientific credibility and are thus consistent withat least this requirement of the universalist approach. Wide-spread interest in scientifically derived generalizations abouthuman behavior, especially in universal causal-functional rela-

tionships, has been stimulated in comparative behavioral sci-ence more by the hologeistic method than by any other singleinfluence. In fact, by its very nature, as I have already pointedout, the logic of the hologcistic method is oriented toward uni-versalist principles. Some hologeistic studies more closely ap-proximate the requirements of the universalist approach thanany other line of inquiry developed so far, but these studiesare not sufficient by themselves to establish unequivocably thespecieswide principles of human behavior for which we are

searching. I turn now to the illustration of a multimethod re-



134

search strategy that is sufficient for establishing these univer-salist principles.As I pointed out earlier, successful universalist efforts must

not only be generalizing in intent but must also conform to theminimum standards of science, deal with transculturally equiv-alent variables and procedures, and at some point test their

principal hypotheses in an adequate pancultural sample. Theseare but minimum standards for the universalist approach. In

addition, as already noted, researchers should recognize that

every &dquo;methodology&dquo; and every specific research procedure (or,more simply, &dquo;method&dquo;) has certain strengths and weaknesses;each will give certain kinds of information and not others, andeach has the potential built into it for systematic error or bias.This being true, it is possible for research results to reflect thismethod bias rather than to be a true measure of the behaviorwe wish to know about. Any such results are disastrous, no lessfor the universalist approach than for any othcr kind of research.To avoid the possibility of interpreting &dquo;method bias&dquo; as beinga true measure of the behavior under question, serious univer-salist researchers triangulate ( see Figure 1, below ) their resultswhenever possible by employing a multimethod research strat-

egy. They employ two or three independent methodologies in

order to determine the extent to which the same conclusions

emerge when multiple and independent measurement processesare used-none of which shares the same weaknesses or poten-tial for bias. Our confidence is increased insofar as we get con-verging results from the use of different tests, especially whenthese tests are performed within the framework of separatemethodologies.

All these methodological and conceptual guidelines are incor-porated into the research design directing my own research onthe worldwide causes and consequences of parental acceptanceand rejection. In this work, we ask the question, &dquo;Do human

beings the world over respond the same way to parental accep-tance (or rejection), regardless of cultural context, physicaltype, environmental conditions, or other limiting conditions?&dquo;We also ask, &dquo;Do parents everywhere who live under specifiedconditions tend to interact with their children in the same way



135

with respect to warmth, hostility, and neglect?&dquo; These are uni-versalist or specieswide questions-questions that, when appro-priately answered, may be elevated to the level of universal

&dquo;principles&dquo; of human behavior.In order to deal with an issue as complex as this one, we

employ a research strategy that incorporates three distinct &dquo;tra-

ditions&dquo; of research or methodological components (diagramedin Figure 1), namely, the cross-cultural survey component, thepsychological research component, and the intracultural com-

munity study component. Figure 1 shows that the methodologiesused in this research produce overlapping results. It is in thehatched area, where all three methodologies converge, that theresults have successfully survived the onslaught of the multi-method research strategy, and it is in this area that the uni-

versalist or specieswide principles are to be found.The most highly developed component of this work is the

one using the cross-cultural survey (i.e. holocultural) method,wherein we employ a worldwide sample of 101 communities

(i.e. &dquo;societies&dquo;) representing a stratified sample of the world’sknown and adequately described cultural systems. The objec-tive here is to test statistically hypotheses about the worldwiderelationship between parental acceptance-rejection on the one

Figure 1. Triangulatio’l of M etlwdologies



136

hand and specific personality characteristics of children and

adults, expressive features of society, and societal maintenancesystems on the other. The goal of this component, as for the

project as a whole, is to develop a theory which will allow usto reliably predict the worldwide consequences of parental ac-ceptance-rejection for personality development and functioning,as well as for selected expressive features of society, and also

to predict specific environmental and maintenance-system con-ditions under which parents everywhere accept or reject theirchildren.The second component, the psychological research component,

involves research in North America on various aspects of the

rejection-acceptance problem, including child abuse. This com-ponent also incorporates cross-species research on aspects of

developmental psychobiology, ethological studies, and other dis-ciplines relating to the matenial behavior of mammals (see,for example, Denenberg 1969: DeVore 1963; Harlow 1971),and it includes an intensive and systematic survey of a vast ex-perimental and observational literature in the psychological sci-

ences on the causes and consequences of acceptance-rejection.Psychological research complements cross-cultural survey re-

search, in that the former deals with interindividual variability,whereas holocultural research deals with intercultural variability.It is often possible to experimentally manipulate and controlpsychological variables within North America in ways that can-not be done in cross-cultural research; the holocultural methodis nonetheless indispensable, because, among other things, it

lets investigators measure the extent to which psychological re-search done in North America can be generalized to the entireworld. Psychological research within North America cannot byitself distinguish culturally dependent from specieswide devel-

opmental tendencies. In fact, the vast portion of all psychologi-cal research is in one sense culture-bound, in that it has beendone within the United States. More particularly, it has beenconducted on a minuscule and unrepresentative sample of theAmerican population-i.e. on college students, especially intro-

ductory psychology students (Carlson 1971: 204). As a result,many psychologists and anthropologists have raised serious ques-



137

tions about the pancultural generalizability of a significant por-tion of psychological research.

Intracultural community studies, or case studies, form thethird component of this research. The community study ap-

proach involves long-term anthropological and psychologicalfield investigations of communities within the United States,but especially in culture areas outside North America. The gen-eral cultural setting as well as parent-child relationships are

studied within each community, and personality assessments aremade of the sample children and their parents.10 Communitystudies provide invaluable information about the influence ofnatural (e.g. cultural, climatic, etc.) settings on behavior andpersonality development. The community study (i.e. case study)method also provides the opportunity to vary systematically cul-tural and other social and environmental conditions, while si-

multaneously allowing for the measurement of individual vari-ability as well as behavioral uniformities within each community.This component, like the psychological research component,employs an interdisciplinary and multimethod research strat-

egy.ll But unlike the other two methodologies, the communitystudy component concentrates on tcithil1-community consistenciesand variability in behavior. In every community some parentsare warmer or more accepting than others, even though thegeneral cultural nomi may tend toward rejection. Similar varia-tions in other relevant forms of behavior are found within allcommunities as well. The universalist theory in our research

postulates that rejection (or acceptance) by itself is sufficient,but not necessary, to produce certain specified consequences,regardless of the &dquo;culture&dquo; of a people, their physical type, or

any other conditions that might alter their behavior. Thus, to

take an extreme example, the theory predicts that an acceptedchild within any given family will develop certain character-istics that are more like the characteristics of accepted childrenelsewhere-perhaps under widely different cultural and otherconditions-than the characteristics of his own rejected sibling.The community study component and aspects of the psycho-

logical research component provide the opportunity to study insitu many of the relationships found in cross-cultural surveys.



138

This technique of subsystem rcplication (i.e. testing within asingle cultural system the results reached in holocultural re-

search ) contributes to the assessment of the validity and general-izability of results coming from the other two methodologies.The universalist, multimethod, research strategy described

here is likely to involve investigators in interdisciplinary research-as it does in my work-because, it seems, most of the behav-ioral sciences have only one or a very few methodologies (i.e.general classes or paradigms of research) that are regarded asbeing appropriate for answering the questions customarily askedwithin each discipline. The experimental method[ology], for ex-ample, is used universally and is regarded as sacrosanct within&dquo;scientific&dquo; psychology, but it is virtually unknown within an-thropology. Even if they were expert with it, however, manyanthropologists would be offended if the experimental methodwere employed on the conventional problems of social anthro-pology-just as some experimental psychologists are scientificallyoffended when it is not. In this way, keepers of the disciplinaryfaith unintentionally inhibit a unified science of man from de-veloping, simply by insisting that anthropology, psychology, so-ciology, or whatever is properly conducted only within thebounds of the profession’s customary scientific paradigm (seeKuhn 1970). For this reason, many of the most productive ad-vances in human knowledge are yet to come, and many willbe made only insofar as behavioral scientists feel free to workat the boundaries between two or more established disciplines.

NOTES

1 This paper was presented in a somewhat modified form at the work-shop and panel on "The Strategy of Comparative Inquiry," ComparativeInterdisciplinary Studies Section/International Studies Association, AnnualMeeting, Washington, D.C., February 1975. I thank Raoul Naroll, RobertC. Ness, Evelyn C. Rohner and Caroline C. Turner for their helpful com-ments on an earlier draft.

2 Regarding the virtual demise of comparative anthropology, Acker-knecht (1954: 117) wrote that "within a hundred years the comparativemethod has in anthropology, especially in cultural anthropology, descend-ed from a dominant position to a point where it is in general either notpracticed or even condemned explicitly." Through the influence of mensuch as Radcliffe-Brown (1952), however, the comparative method had



139

a more continuous utilization in England than in the United States (seeNadel 1951: 222-55). I should note that when I use the term "anthro-

pology" in this paper, I mean ethnology, or sociocultural anthropology,not archeology, linguistic anthropology, or biological anthropology, althoughmuch of the argument is pertinent to these subdisciplines, too.

3 Comparative anthropologists observe and measure both the commonali-ties and the differences in behavior of populations, and some scholars

compare human behavior with the behavior of nonhumans, especially thehigher primates.

4 When they are confronted with worldwide generalizing efforts, how-ever, many of these anthropologists become perceptibly uncomfortable.

5 Sapir ( 1916 ) wrote the classic discussion of the use of the comparativemethod for reconstructing specific culture history. For an expanded dis-cussion of trait distribution studies, see Driver ( 1970). Driver (1973:171-75) also presented a brief but effective discussion of the comparativebasis of Boas’ "culture area school." Readers who are interested in com-

parative trait distribution studies, of both the statistical and the non-

statistical variety, should also become familiar with the German-Austriankulturkreise school, as well as with the American and British historicalist-diffusionist movements of the 1920s and 1930s. Especially notable in thiscontext was the University of California (Berkeley) "Culture Element

Survey" supervised by Kroeber.6 Holonational studies are often identified as cross-polity surveys or

as cross-national surveys.7 I should note, though, that a collection of case studies on a topic is

invaluable for comparative research. Such case studies form the data basefor the holocultural method, for example. Also, the individual case studymay be used effectively for exploratory research, for hypothesis-formu-lating research, and for intracultural or within-system hypothesis testing—but not for worldwide hypothesis testing.

8 The probability model deals with the statistical probability of an eventoccurring, or of the co-occurrence or sequential occurrence of events underspecified conditions. The mechanical model described later postulates more-or-less exceptional uniformities or invariants of behavior. It assumes thatbehavior is ruleful, and that if one knows the rules in sufficient detailhe can predict behavior with more-or-less perfect accuracy.

9 The history of the hologeistic method goes back to the late 1800s, butNarroll (e.g. 1973) is today the leading exponent and developer of themethodology. For a thorough discussion of the principal methodologicalproblems of the method—in the context of data—see Rohner 1975b.

10 The details of the research procedures and tests used in the com-

munity study component are given in a Field Manual for the Study ofParental Acceptance-Rejection ( Rohner n.d.).

11 In order to measure the parent-child relationship and to assess the

personality characteristics of parents and children, a variety of discretemethods are used in the socialization facet of each community study,namely parent and child interviews, a parent-child relations questionnaireadministered to parents as well as to sample children, a personality as-

sessment questionnaire administered to both the sample children and to

their principal caretakers, and systematic, time-sampled and behavior-set-



140

ting-sampled behavior observations. The field team ideally comprises an

anthropologist, who concentrates mainly on the ethnographic facet of the

research, and a psychologically trained researcher, who focuses on thesocialization facet of the research. Many of these instruments and pro-

cedures are also used in the psychological research component.

REFERENCES

Ackerknecht, Erwin H.1954 "On the comparative method of anthropology," in Robert F.

Spencer, ed., Method and Perspective in Anthropology, Min-

neapolis, University of Minnesota Press: 117-25.

Ardrey, Robert1966 The territorial imperative, New York, Atheneum.

Bennett, John W., and Gustav Thaiss1967 "Survey research and sociocultural anthropology," in Charles

Y. Glock, ed., Survey Research in the Social Sciences, NewYork, Russell Sage Foundation: 269-311.

Berlin, Brent, and Paul Kay1969 Basic color terms: their universality and evolution, Berkeley,

University of California Press.Boas, Franz

1894 Indianische Sagen von der Nord-Pacifischen Küste Amerikas,Berlin, Asher.

1895 "Die Entwickelungder Mythologien der Indianes der Nord-Pacifischen Kiiste Amerikas," Zeitschrift fiir Ethnologie 27:487-523.

1896 "The limitations of the comparative method of anthropology,"Science 4: 901-08 (reprinted in Boas, Race, language, andculture, New York, Macmillan, 1940: 270-80).

Bowlby, John1969 Attachment and loss, 2 vols., vol. 1, "Attachment," New York,

Basic Books.Brislin, Richard W., Walter J. Lonner, and Robert M. Thorndike

1973 Cross-cultural research methods, New York, Wiley-Interscience.Campbell, Donald T.

1961 "The mutual methodological relevance of anthropology andpsychology, in F. L. K. Hsu, ed., Psychological Anthropology,Homewood, Ill., Dorsey Press: 333-52.

Carlson, Rae1971 "Where is the person in personality research?" Psychological

Bulletin 75: 203-19.Chomsky, Noam

1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.Dasen, Pierre R.

1972 "Cross-cultural Piagetian research: a summary," Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology 3: 23-29.

Dawson, John L. M.1971 "Theory and research in cross-cultural psychology," British

Psychological Society, Bulletin 24: 291-306.



141

Denenberg, Victor H.1969 "Animal studies of early experiences: some principles which

have implications for human development," in John Hill, ed.,Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, Minneapolis, Uni-versity of Minnesota Press: 31-45.

DeVore, Irven1963 "Mother-infant relations in free-ranging baboons," in H. L.

Rheingold, ed., Maternal Behavior in Mammals, New York,John Wiley and Sons: 305-35.

DeVos, George A., and Arthur A. Hippler1968- "Cultural psychology: comparative studies of human behavior,"69 in Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, eds., The Handbook

of Social Psychology, 2d ed., 5 vols., Reading, Mass., AddisonWesley: 4, 323-417.

Driver, Harold E.1961 Indians of North America, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.1970 "Statistical studies of continuous geographical distributions,"

in Raoul Narroll and Ronald Cohen, eds., A Handbook ofMethod in Cultural Anthropology, Garden City, N.Y., NaturalHistory Press: 620-40 (reissued in 1973 by Columbia Univer-sity Press).

1973 "Cultural diffusion," in Raoul Narroll and Frada Naroll, eds.,Main Currents in Cultural Anthropology, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts : 157-83.

Driver, Harold E., and William C. Massey1957 "Comparative studies of North American Indians," Transactions

of the American Philosophical Society 47: 165-456.Fox, Robin

1970 "The cultural animal," Social Science Information 9: 7-25.Freedman, Daniel G.

1968 "Personality development in infancy: a biological approach,"in Sherwood L. Washburn and Phillip C. Jay, eds., Perspec-tives on Human Evolution, New York, Holt, Rinehart andWinston: 1, 258-87.

Freeman, Derek1966 "Social anthropology and the scientific study of human be-

havior," Man 1: 330-42.

Freud, Sigmund1930 Civilization and its discontents, London, Hogarth Press.1950 Totem and taboo (translated by James Strachey), New York,

W. W. Norton.

Goldberg, Steven1973 The inevitability of patriarchy: Why the biological difference

between men and women always produces male domination,New York, William Morrow.

Greenberg, Joseph H.1975 "Research on language universals," in Bernard J. Siegel, Alan

R. Beals, and S. A. Tyler, eds., Annual Review of Anthropology,Stanford, Stanford University Press: 4, 75-94.



142

Hall, G. Stanley1904 Adolescence: its psychology and its relation to physiology, an-

thropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion and education, NewYork, Appleton.

Hamburg, David A.1968 "Evolution of emotional responses: evidence from recent re-

search on non-human primates," Science and Psychoanalysis12: 39-54.

Harlow, Harry F.1971 Learning to love, San Francisco, Cal., Albion Publishing Com-

pany.Jahoda, Gustav

1970 "A cross-cultural perspective in psychology," Advancement ofScience 27: 57-70.

Jakobson, Roman1968 Child language, aphasia and phonological universals, New York,

Humanities Press.

Keesing, Roger M.1973 "Paradigms lost: the new ethnography and the new linguistics,"

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 28: 299-332.

Köbben, André J. F.1970 "Comparativists and noncomparativists in anthropology," in

Raoul Naroll and Ronald Cohen, eds., A Handbook of Methodin Cultural Anthropology, Garden City, N.Y., Natural HistoryPress: 581-96 (reissued in 1973 by Columbia University Press).

Kuhn, Thomas S.1970 The structure of scientific revolutions, 2d ed., enlarged, Chi-

cago, University of Chicago Press.Leach, Edmund R.

1961 Rethinking anthropology, London, University of London, Ath-lone Press.

Lenneberg, Eric H.1964 "A biological perspective of language," in his New Directions

in the Study of Language, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press: 65-88.Lévi-Strauss, Claude

1963 Structural anthropology (translated from French by ClaireJacohson and Brooke G. Schoepf), New York, Basic Books.

Lewis, Oscar1966 "Comparisons in cultural anthropology," in Frank W. Moore.

ed., Readings in Cross-Cultural Methodology, 2d printing, reset,New Haven, HRAF Press: 50-85.

Lorenz, Konrad1966 On aggression, New York, Harcourt, Brace, & World.

Malinowski, Bronislaw1927 Sex and repression in savage society, New York, World.

Mead, Margaret1928 Coming of age in Samoa, New York, William Morrow.

Morris, Desmond1967 The naked ape: a zoologist’s study of the human animal, New

York, McGraw-Hill.



143

Murphy, Robert, and Julian H. Steward1956 "Tappers and trappers: parallel processes in acculturation,"

Economic Development and Cultural Change 4: 335-53.

Nadel, Siegfried F.1951 The foundations of social anthropology, London, Cohen and

West.

Naroll, Raoul1968 "Some thoughts on comparative method in cultural anthropol-

ogy," in Hubert M. Blalock, Jr., and Ann B. Blalock, eds.,Methodology in Social Research, New York, McGraw-Hill:236-77.

1973 "Holocultural theory tests," in Raoul Naroll and Frada Naroll,eds., Main Currents in Cultural Anthropology, New York, Ap-pleton-Century-Crofts: 309-84.

Naroll, Raoul, Timothy J. O’Leary, and Lee Sigelman1974 "A hologeistic bibliography," Working Paper No. 23 ISA/CISS,

Pittsburgh, University Center for International Studies.

Osgood, Charles E., William H. May, and Murray S. Miron1975 Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning, Urbana, Uni-

versity of Illinois Press.

Piaget, Jean1970 Genetic epistemology (Eleanor Bucksworth, trans.), New York,

Columbia University Press.Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R.

1952 Structure and function in primitive society, Glencoe, Ill., FreePress.

Redfield, Robert1941 Folk culture of Yucatan, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Rohner, Ronald P.1970 "Parental rejection, food deprivation, and personality develop-

ment : tests of alternative hypotheses," Ethnology 9: 414-27.1975a "Parental acceptance-rejection and personality development; a

universalist approach to behavioral science," in W. W. Brislin,S. Bochner, and W. J. Lonner, eds., Cross-Cultural Perspectiveson Learning, Beverly Hills, Calif., Sage Publications: 251-69.

1975b They love me, they love me not: a worldwide study of the

effects of parental acceptance and rejection, New Haven,HRAF Press.

1976 "Sex differences in aggression: phylogenetic and enculturationperspective," Ethos 4: 57-72.

n.d. Field manual for the study of parental acceptance-rejection(in preparation).

Rohner, Ronald P., Billie R. DeWalt, and Robert C. Ness1973 "Ethnographer bias in cross-cultural research: an empirical

study," Behavior Science Notes 8: 275-317.Rohner, Ronald P., and Leonard Katz

1970 "Testing for validity and reliability in cross-cultural research,"American Anthropologist 72: 1068-73.



144

Sapir, Edward1916 "Time perspective in aboriginal American culture: a study

in method," Ottawa, Government Printing Bureau, GeologicalSurvey (Memoir 90): 1-87.

Sears, Robert R.1961 "Transcultural variables and conceptual equivalence," in Bert

Kaplan, ed., Studying Personality Cross-Culturally, Evanston,Ill., Row, Peterson: 445-55.

Sebeok, Thomas A.1968 "Goals and limitations in the study of animal communications,"

in his Animal Communication Bloomington, Indiana Univer-

sity Press: 3-14.Tiger, Lionel

1969 Men in groups, New York, Random House.



Advantages of the Comparative Method of Anthropology 1 - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of Advantages of the Comparative Method of Anthropology 1 - CiteSeerX