10.1177/1525822X05279899 FIELD METHODS Dressler et al. / MEASURING CULTURAL CONSONANCE Measuring Cultural Consonance: Examples with Special Reference to Measurement Theory in Anthropology WILLIAM W. DRESSLER University of Alabama CAMILA D. BORGES University of São Paulo MAURO C. BALIEIRO Paulista University JOSÉ ERNESTO DOS SANTOS University of São Paulo A valid and reliable anthropological measurement must be culturally appropriate for a particular social setting. Justifying the appropriateness of a measurement often depends on the skill of the researcher in describing the ethnographic setting. This has resulted in valuable research, but it is difficult to systematize and lacks transparency. Here the authors present a measurement model for anthropology that links struc- tured ethnographic methods—cultural domain analysis and cultural consensus analysis—to the assessment of individual behavior and personal beliefs. These pro- cedures are illustrated with the concept of cultural consonance, or the degree to which an individual approximates in his or her own behavior or belief the shared cul- tural model in some domain. The concrete steps taken to develop measures of cul- tural consonance in four domains (lifestyle, social support, family life, and national characteristics) are described, and the reliability and validity of these measures are evaluated. This describes a measurement model for anthropology. Keywords: cultural consonance; cultural consensus analysis; cultural models; measurement theory This article describes the measurement of individual beliefs and behaviors relative to a particular cultural context. Formal hypothesis testing in anthro- This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (BCS-0091903). Manoel António dos Santos and Kathryn S. Oths offered invaluable assistance in all stages of this work. William H. Batchelder, Cyleste Collins, Lance Gravlee, Ted Graves, Kathryn S. Oths, and anon- ymous reviewers for Field Methods offered helpful comments on an earlier draft of the article. The authors alone are responsible for any errors. Field Methods, Vol. 17, No. 4, November 2005 331–355 DOI: 10.1177/1525822X05279899 © 2005 Sage Publications 331