comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

The Ecological Fallacy and Internal Validity
The essence of internal validity is accounting for third-variable influences on
interpretations of presumed if A then B relationships in which A represents the
independent variable and B the dependent variable. It is here that a source of noncomparability
between an individual and an aggregate group correlation of the same
variables may arise. Concerning shifting from individual to group analyses, “In shifting
from one unit of analysis to another, we are very likely to affect the manner in which
outside and possibly disturbing influences are operating on the dependent and
independent variables” (Blalock, 1964: 79). As a result of the grouping operation, one
may have controlled for the effects of other variables in addition to A, making the
ecological estimate less biased than the individual estimate (Gove and Hughes, 1980).
Or one may have introduced various confounding variables, making the ecological-level
correlation more biased (Hanuschek, Jackson and Kain, 1974). If a difference occurs
between ecological- and individual-level correlations, the problem may be due to a
failure to specify the correct model, and not to an inherent logical fallacy in moving
from individual to group correlations. The effects are there, but the reason for finding
differences may be due to a study design failure. Such a failure in cross-cultural studies
is the use of country of citizenship as a grouping variable; this introduces a nearly
incomprehensible number of confounding variables.
The Ecological Fallacy and Construct Validity
In this context, construct validity refers to the concept developed by Cook and Campbell
(1979), who argue that the term can refer only to constructs at the same level of
reduction. That is, a construct can only have validity at the individual or group level
unless it can be demonstrated to have validity at both (Sharon Schwartz, 1994). When
discrepancies between individual and ecological correlations remain after we believe we
have controlled for all confounding influences, this may be due to (1) further
misspecifications, where other confounding variables are not taken into account, or, (2)
that an aggregate variable may measure a different construct than its namesake at the
individual level (Firebaugh, 1978: 560). The construct referenced on the ecological
level may derive from the context or social environment in which individuals live,
distinct from the attributes of those individuals (Blau, 1960; Blau and Blau 1982; Davis,
Spaeth, and Huson, 1961; Farkas, 1974; Meltzer, 1963). Wealth as an individual
185