Oxford Text pg 208-219

etic approach

studying cultures from an outside perspective looking in (aka taylor’s version)

emic research

trying to understand a culture from within

sultural syndromes

culture-specific behaviour

Geert Hofstede

psychologist who came up with four trends (dimensions) about values and behaviours

individualism vs collectivism (1980)

Hofstede’s dimension of whether someone defines their identity based on personal characteristics or a social group

power distance index (PDI) (1980)

Hofstede’s dimension which measures the extent to which the less-powerful members of a group accept and expect that power will be distiuted unevenly

masculinity vs femininity (1980)

Hofstede’s dimension which measures the extent to which the values of a culture include achievement, autonomy, and competitiveness vs caring, cooperation, and compassion

uncertainty avoidance index (1980)

Hofstede’s dimension which measures the extent to which a culture is comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty

long-term vs short-term orientation (1991)

Hofstede’s dimension based on the idea that cultures do not experience time in the same way

indulgence vs restraint (2010)

Hofstede’s dimension which measures the extent to which a culture allows relatively open access to the enjoyment of natural human drives

Triandis (2001)

psychologist who identified four categories of individualism vs collectivism

horizontal individualism

Triandis’ category of individualism vs collectivism where members are unique and mostly of the same status

vertical individualism

Triandis’ category of individualism vs collectivism where members are unique but it is possible to distinguish yourself and enjoy a higher status in a social hierarchy

horizontal collectivism

Triandis’ category of individualism vs collectivism where members merge themselves with the ingroup and enjoy largely the same status

vertical collectivism

Triandis’ category of individualism vs collectivism where members merge themselves with the ingroup and submit themselves to an authority in that ingroup

universalism

“others” are individuals, not necessarily out-group members

Berry and Katz (1967)

compared Temme (with collectivism culture) and Inuit (with individualism culture) societies; found Temme people are more likely to conform using Asch paradigm (line test)

Kemmelmeier, Jambor, and Letner (2006)

studied: the relationship between individualism and voluntary prosocial behaviour (stranger to stranger helping); found: individualism promotes charitable giving

Lyengar et al (1999)

found collectivist cultures tend to discriminate in favor of their ingroup so stranger-to-stranger helping is less common in these cultures

Finkelstein (2010)

studied: the influence of cultures on volunteer behaviour; found: in individualist cultures career-related reasons were the strongest volunteer motivation, in collectivist cultures volunteer-role identity was the strongest motivation

Hsu and Barker (2013)

conducted a content analysis of TV ads, rating of individualism vs collectivism and traditional vs modern themes; found: ads aimed at younger Chinese viewers scored higher on individualism than collectivism

Meeuwesen, van den Brink-Muinen, and Hofstede (2009)

studied: whether Hofstede’s dimensions could predict cross-national differences in patient-doctor communication; found: the higher the PDI score, the more one-sided the conversation with the doctor and patient, and the lower the PDI score, the more information, flexible communication styles, and longer consultations between a doctor and patient

Eylon and Au (1999)

studied: power distance and empowerment in the workplace; found: high and low per distance groups react differently to being empowered in the workplace (high PDI = better when disempowered)

Brockner et al (2001)

found: there’s a tendency for people in lower power distance cultures to respond less favorably to lower levels of boice (participation in decision-making) than people in higher power distance cultures

openness to change

overarching higher order group for self-direction and stimulation

self-direction

1) independent thought and action; coosing, creating, exploring

stimulation

2) excitement, novelty, and challenge in life

self-enhancement

overarching higher order group for hedonism, achievement, and power

hedonism

3) pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself

achievement

4) personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards

power

5) social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources

conservation

overarching higher order group for security, conformity, and tradition

security

6) safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self

conformity

7) restraint of actions, indinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms

tradition

8) respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self

self-transcendence

overarching higher order group for benevolence and universalism

benevolance

9) preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the ingroup)

universalism

10) understanding, appreciating, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature

ecological fallacy

inferring information about individuals using information from a group to which they belong

Hofstede and McCrae (2004)

found personality scores correlated with cultural dimension scores

McCrae and John’s (1992) model (OCEAN model)

Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism

neuroticism

McCrae and John’s (1992) model - tendency towards unstable emotions like anger and sadness while appearing insensitive to others

extraversion

McCrae and John’s (1992) model - tendency toward talkativeness, sociability, and enjoyment of others; dominant style of behaviour

openness to experience

McCrae and John’s (1992) model - tendency to appreciate new ideas, values, ideas, and behaviours

agreeableness

McCrae and John’s (1992) model - tendency to agree to go along with others and avoid asserting your own values, opinions, or choices

conscientiousness

McCrae and John’s (1992) model - tendency to be cautious, punctual, hard-working, and a rule-follower