Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Cross culture

•Download as PPT, PDF•
•
Z
zhumin

This document summarizes a study that examines the relationship between country-level cultural orientations and individual response styles. It hypothesizes that response styles may vary based on a country's levels of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity-femininity. The study analyzes survey data from over 20,000 individuals across 19 countries. It measures response styles like extreme responding and acquiescence and relates these to Hofstede's cultural dimensions using hierarchical linear modeling. The results and a discussion of linking cultures to response styles are presented. The discussion notes potential limitations like the age of Hofstede's original cultural measures and the post-hoc development of the response style measures.

1 of 12
THE RELATION BETWEEN CULTURE AND RESPONSE STYLES Evidence From 19 Countries Yanan Wang Ph.D. Candidate of Social Psychology  Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences  Zhejiang University 2010.9.26
Topic What are the associations between country-level cultural orientations and person-level response styles?
Keywords (I) Country-level cultural orientations Hofstede-Four cultural orientations: Power distance Uncertainty avoidance Individualism-Collectivism Masculinity-Femininity
Keywords (II) Response biases Response set Response style Extremeness response Style Acquiescence response style
Hypotheses • Persons in societies that are high in power distance way be more likely to exhibit acquiescent response behavior. • Extreme responding may be more common in cultures that emphasize uncertainty avoidance. • Persons within individualistic cultures may be more likely to demonstrate extreme response behavior. • Extreme response styles may be more common among persons in masculine cultures.
Method (I) Data source: • The data to be analyzed were originally collected as part of employee surveys (Employee satisfaction and Work environment)conducted by ISR LLC, between 1992 and 2002. A total of 20,270 surveys was available for analysis. A total of 19 countries on five continents is represented in these data. • 120 items. Most items were closed-ended and employed 5-point Likert-type response formats. Only items using the disagree-to-agree format were included in these analyses. • Additional information was available with regard to several person-level characteristics, including age, gender, and length of employment.
Cross culture
Cross culture
Method (II) Measures: (i) Measures of cultural orientations: Hofstede’s (2001) (ii) Measures of extreme response style and acquiescence were constructed from the questions available in the core survey instrument. • 1.Measures of extreme response style • 2. Measures of acquiescent response style (iii) Gender, age, and length of employment (III) Analyses: Hierarchical linear modeling
Results
Discussion • A attempt to link national dimensions of culture with the response styles examined in this study. This research consequently makes an important contribution to expanding body of research concerned with investigating and understanding the mechanisms by which culture influences the collection of questionnaire data. • The national-level measures of Hofstede’s (2001) four important cultural dimensions may be questioned, as they were initially developed on the basis of survey data colected more than 30 years ago. • The measures of acquiescent and extreme response behaviors were developed post hoc from survey questions originally collected for other purposes surveys (Employee satisfaction and Work environment).
THANKS VERY MUCH!

More Related Content

Cross culture

  • 1. THE RELATION BETWEEN CULTURE AND RESPONSE STYLES Evidence From 19 Countries Yanan Wang Ph.D. Candidate of Social Psychology  Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences  Zhejiang University 2010.9.26
  • 2. Topic What are the associations between country-level cultural orientations and person-level response styles?
  • 3. Keywords (I) Country-level cultural orientations Hofstede-Four cultural orientations: Power distance Uncertainty avoidance Individualism-Collectivism Masculinity-Femininity
  • 4. Keywords (II) Response biases Response set Response style Extremeness response Style Acquiescence response style
  • 5. Hypotheses • Persons in societies that are high in power distance way be more likely to exhibit acquiescent response behavior. • Extreme responding may be more common in cultures that emphasize uncertainty avoidance. • Persons within individualistic cultures may be more likely to demonstrate extreme response behavior. • Extreme response styles may be more common among persons in masculine cultures.
  • 6. Method (I) Data source: • The data to be analyzed were originally collected as part of employee surveys (Employee satisfaction and Work environment)conducted by ISR LLC, between 1992 and 2002. A total of 20,270 surveys was available for analysis. A total of 19 countries on five continents is represented in these data. • 120 items. Most items were closed-ended and employed 5-point Likert-type response formats. Only items using the disagree-to-agree format were included in these analyses. • Additional information was available with regard to several person-level characteristics, including age, gender, and length of employment.
  • 9. Method (II) Measures: (i) Measures of cultural orientations: Hofstede’s (2001) (ii) Measures of extreme response style and acquiescence were constructed from the questions available in the core survey instrument. • 1.Measures of extreme response style • 2. Measures of acquiescent response style (iii) Gender, age, and length of employment (III) Analyses: Hierarchical linear modeling
  • 11. Discussion • A attempt to link national dimensions of culture with the response styles examined in this study. This research consequently makes an important contribution to expanding body of research concerned with investigating and understanding the mechanisms by which culture influences the collection of questionnaire data. • The national-level measures of Hofstede’s (2001) four important cultural dimensions may be questioned, as they were initially developed on the basis of survey data colected more than 30 years ago. • The measures of acquiescent and extreme response behaviors were developed post hoc from survey questions originally collected for other purposes surveys (Employee satisfaction and Work environment).