Blog

Coronavirus: How Did Culture Impact Compliance?

Posted on by Leave a comment

The coronavirus pandemic taught us many things about human nature.

We are a social people. Toilet paper is important. And many people hate covering their face.

It also showed us that the way different countries dealt with the pandemic proved more or less effective and largely dependent upon compliance from the population.

New research aimed to explore attitudes towards health compliance and psychological responses within the context of cultural frameworks of individualism and collectivism. 

Cultural Orientation

The findings, based on data from Chinese university students, revealed that cultural orientations significantly predicted attitudes toward compliance and psychological responses.

The study found a high overall endorsement of restrictive measures. 

Compared to Japanese and American counterparts, Chinese participants exhibited the highest acceptance of society-level preventive measures. 

This strong compliance with social distancing can be attributed to the strict isolation measures implemented by the Chinese government. 

However, despite behavioral compliance, participants might have had personal reservations about individual-level precautions, such as wearing gloves when shopping or disclosing travel history.

Predictors of Compliance

Several predictors shed light on Chinese participants’ attitudes toward compliance. 

Gender was one such predictor, with female students demonstrating a greater willingness to comply than males.

Additionally, cultural orientations at the individual level played a significant role. 

Vertical collectivism (VC) predicted positive attitudes towards compliance, as it fostered a strong group identity and respect for authority. 

Horizontal collectivism (HC), while promoting in-group commitment, did not lead to the same level of acceptance of preventive measures. 

Individualistic orientations had mixed effects, with horizontal individualism (HI) positively predicting compliance and vertical individualism (VI) predicting less favorable attitudes toward compliance.

Contrary to previous research on epidemics, the study found that concerns about the virus did not notably predict positive attitudes toward compliance. 

Instead, psychological distress was positively predicted by VI and VC, indicating that those who valued uniqueness and competition or strong group identity experienced more negative psychological effects. 

In contrast, HC predicted less psychological distress, suggesting that individuals emphasizing equal responsibility within their in-group experienced fewer mental health problems.

Chinese college students were more willing to comply with preventive measures if they had higher VC and HI cultural orientations.

Trust

While trust was linked to attitudes towards compliance and psychological distress, it did not notably predict these variables in the regression models. 

This indicates that individual-level cultural orientations were more influential in explaining compliance attitudes and psychological responses than interpersonal trust.

The study highlighted the importance of considering psychological distress and cultural orientations in public health interventions to promote public cooperation. 

By incorporating individuals’ beliefs and concerns, effective strategies can be developed to fight infectious diseases without compromising democratic values.

Values & Communication: How Cultural Perspective Colors Our Speech

Posted on by 1 Comment

You’re flying to London, and you’re sitting by someone from another culture on the plane.

You decide to try and strike up a conversation.

You start chitchatting, sharing about your visit to London, asking about their final destination, wondering what their plans are…but they seem reluctant to speak.

They avoid eye contact and offer only short answers. After a while, you catch a clue and give them the solace of silence.

You walk away from the attempt at small talk with the impression that they’re shy.

While you may be right that they’re more introverted, their communication style may also simply be part of their culture.

In this study in the International Education Journal, titled “Why do they not talk?”, unique habits of communication were found in individualist and collectivist cultures.

The study evaluated the communication tactics of Australian and Chinese students to discover the distinct cultural differences that set each apart.

The Australians

The Australian students demonstrated a more independent self, emphasizing individuality in their communication. 

They expressed themselves openly and asserted their unique inner qualities in interactions with friends, parents, and in class. 

Their behavior was guided by their individual personalities rather than predefined roles. 

They appeared nonchalant about others’ opinions, focusing on being their own person while still desiring their parents’ pride.

The Chinese

In contrast, the Chinese students displayed a high degree of self-monitoring. 

They exhibited an interdependent self, prioritizing group harmony and considering others’ perceptions.

They were sensitive to others’ feelings and often hesitated to voice their opinions, particularly in class or group settings, for fear of imposing on others. 

Some researchers suggested that their attentiveness to others’ expectations might compromise their verbal fluency and creative expression. 

Additionally, the Chinese students tended to downplay their abilities and engage in self-effacement, adhering to societal expectations and valuing humility.

The Chinese students also demonstrated a strong inclination toward affiliating with groups that shared their language and cultural background. 

This sense of security and belonging contributed to their intense focus on working collectively and cooperatively as a group. 

It’s important to note that interdependence does not negate individual judgment, opinions, or abilities.

Instead, it highlights the adaptive nature of Chinese students who navigate interpersonal situations by balancing their self-awareness and agency.

As one student put it,

“As long as I know I am good, enough already. We were not brought up to brag about ourselves.”

Individualism vs. Collectivism

To sum up, the Australian students emphasized their individuality and personal expression in communication, while the Chinese students prioritized group harmony and were attuned to others’ perceptions. 

This is common in individualist versus collectivist cultures.

These cultural differences shape communication styles and strategies, highlighting the diverse ways in which individuals navigate social interactions.

The Theory of a Universal Structure of Human Values

Posted on by Leave a comment

What values do you consider “collectivist”? How about “individualist”?

If you had to explain your own values, under which headline would they fall?

This study examines the values of American, Indian, and Japanese populations. 

The intent of this cross-cultural research was to measure the individualist, collectivist, and mixed values in each culture to see where they fell.

First off, what constitutes an “individualist” versus a “collectivist” value?

The Values

The researchers used the theory of a universal structure of human values, proposed by Schwartz and Bilsky in 1987 (revised in 1992).

Each value is labeled individualist, collectivist, or mixed and are as follows:

  • Power: Attainment of social status, dominance, and control. (Individualist)
  • Achievement: Personal success and competence. (I)
  • Hedonism: Pleasure and enjoyment. (I)
  • Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and a thrilling life. (I)
  • Self-Direction: Independent thought, action, and autonomy. (I)
  • Benevolence: Preserving and improving the welfare of others. (Collectivist)
  • Tradition: Respect for and acceptance of cultural customs and traditions. (C)
  • Conformity: Restraint of behaviors to maintain social order and harmony. (C)
  • Universalism: Understanding, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all. (Mixed)
  • Security: Stability of self, relationships, and society. (M)
  • Spirituality: Finding meaning, inner harmony, and having a spiritual life. (M)

These values encompass a range of motivations and goals that individuals may prioritize in their lives.

The Results

Along with these value types were subcategories of value traits. 

And of these value traits, Americans, Indians, and Japanese participants were compatible in 14 of the 22 individualist values.

Of the collectivist values, participants were compatible in 13 out of 15.

Lastly, of the mixed values, there was compatibility in 9 out of 15 (and absolutely none regarding spiritual values).

The American participants, as expected, scored high on individualist values and mixed types. They had a preference for standing out from the crowd. 

Indians, on the other hand, were drawn to collectivist and mixed values. They believed in the power of unity. 

The Japanese students threw a bit of a curveball. They didn’t follow any clear pattern of individualism or collectivism.

This study suggests that no country – including the United States, India, or Japan – can be neatly labeled as just individualist or collectivist. Each has a melting pot of values.

Independent variables like gender, race, income, or media usage may also help us understand why individualistic and collectivist orientations coexist in the same cultures.

“I’m the Decider.” Decision-Making & Coping Strategies in Individualist vs. Collectivist Cultures

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you make good decisions?

Do you feel you do…and do you actually?

This study in the International Journal of Psychology strove to uncover whether individualist or collectivist cultures were more confident in their decision-making.

It also examined various cultures’ decision-making styles and coping strategies.

Here’s what the study found.

The Subjects

Researchers recruited students from three individualistic Western countries (USA, Australia, and New Zealand) and three collectivist Eastern Asian cultures (Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan) to participate in their experiment.

The purpose of the study was to measure participants’ confidence in their decision-making abilities and the coping patterns they employ.

The Statements

Participants were handed a questionnaire that would unveil the way they view their own decision-making. 

Rating themselves from 0 to 12, the questionnaire prompted with thought-provoking statements like:

  • I think I am a good decision maker
  • I like to consider all of the alternatives
  • I avoid making decisions
  • Even after I have made a decision, I delay acting upon it

This self-reflection and self-reporting led to some exciting finds.

The Coping Strategies

The coping strategies identified by the study included:

  • Vigilance – a careful decision-making style, where every alternative is thoroughly considered. 
  • Buck-passing – dodging decisions and shifting responsibility to someone else. 
  • Procrastination – delaying action even after a decision has been made. 
  • Hypervigilance – a panic-induced decision-making style that makes you feel like time is about to explode.

The Results 

The students from the individualistic Western countries displayed confidence in their decision-making abilities, while their collectivist Eastern Asian counterparts scored higher in buck-passing, avoiding decisions, and hypervigilance.

But what was surprising about this study was that, despite these cultural differences, all six countries showed similar ratings. 

Across all countries, all participants who had higher decision-making self-esteem were more likely to adopt adaptive coping patterns like vigilance. 

On the flip side, those who doubted their decision-making abilities were prone to fall into the abyss of maladaptive coping strategies – buck-passing, avoidance, and hypervigilance.

Potential Flaws in the Study

Some things to keep in mind about the potential flaws in this study are that decision-making strategies depend on the situation.

You might make impulsive decisions in some cases and vigilant ones in others. 

The study did not account for the varied approaches to decision-making according to different scenarios.

Moreover, the difference in cultural values may impact the self-reporting. 

For instance, in many Asian cultures, boasting about oneself or decision-making prowess isn’t the norm. This could have influenced the participants’ responses, leading to hidden biases.

Lastly, self-reporting on decision-making is, of course, subjective and may not align with actual behavior. To get to the bottom of that, researchers would have to observe the participants’ decision-making in action. 

Regardless of the approach, this study uncovers the dynamic relationship between culture, self-esteem, and coping strategies.

The bottom line is decision-making is complex – influenced by context, societal expectations, and our true behavior in the face of tough choices.

Assertive vs. Avoidance Tactics: How Does Culture Determine Approach to Conflict Resolution?

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do you approach conflict resolution?

Are you tactically assertive or avoidant?

And is your approach determined by personality or culture?

Over the coming weeks, I’ll discuss scientific studies dealing with the six cultural constructs, the first of which is individualism versus collectivism.

This paper by cognitive and cross-cultural psychologist, C. Dominik Guess, takes a look at conflict resolution in individualist and collectivist cultures.

Japan Collectivism vs. US Individualism

One of the studies in Guess’ paper explores how cultural background shapes the way conflict is handled – specifically, American individualism versus Japanese collectivism.

A group of researchers, led by Ohbuchi, Fukushima, and Tedeschi, gathered American and Japanese students and unleashed the power of conflict recall. 

They asked participants to dig deep into their memories and recall a conflict they had experienced.

These participants were then asked to share their conflict experience – what they did, what they wanted to achieve, etc. 

Using rating scales, they were asked to measure various aspects of the conflict, like goals and tactics. 

In the battlefield of conflict, four major tactics emerged, each with its own arsenal of sub-tactics: conciliation, assertion, third-party intervention, and avoidance.

The Four Tactics

Let’s better understand the four tactics identified.

Conciliation – this tactic involves finding common ground. It’s a way to indirectly communicate expectations and build bridges. 

Assertion – this tactic is a bold and assertive move, where you fiercely demand what you want.

Third-party intervention – this tactic involves calling in reinforcements in the form of seeking help or advice from an outsider. 

Avoidance – this tactic is the ultimate passivity, dodging confrontation like a pro.

Considering these differing approaches to conflict resolution, you can imagine the cultural clash that may result.

The Results: Assertive vs. Avoidant

As you may have guessed, the American students, with their individualistic spirit, generally used assertive tactics in their conflicts. 

On the flip side, the Japanese students, being the collectivist champions they are, took a more subtle approach overall. 

They opted for avoidance tactics, sidestepping confrontation and prioritizing harmony in their relationships.

This may be because each group’s main goal in these conflicts also differed.

The Japanese participants prioritized their relationships, while the American participants’ goal was more often geared toward achieving a sense of justice.

While the results confirm what most would have hypothesized, considering what we already know about individualist and collectivist cultures, the research could be adapted so that the type of conflict being discussed is more uniform. 

An individual’s approach (the tactics and goals) may vary based on the conflict.

As the students were allowed to choose whichever conflict they wanted to assess, their responses may have differed based upon the type they chose.

Regardless, this study may tell us something key about how individualists and collectivists approach conflict: individualists with justice in mind, and collectivists with harmony.

Do You Know Yourself? Individualist vs. Collectivist Self Insight

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do you see yourself?

Can you accurately self-reflect on your traits, behaviors, and ideology and use that knowledge to predict how you might behave in the future?

Do you see yourself clearly? Do you understand why you do the things you do?

And how does your culture influence that self-insight?

Over the next several weeks, we will dive headfirst into the six cultural constructs discussed in last week’s post, the first of which is individualism versus collectivism.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Individualists and collectivists often have different motivations. 

Why?

Because the societies and cultures that form these us provide us with different values, norms, dreams, desires, etc.

Individualist cultures generally prioritize personal achievement and independence.

Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, prioritize cooperation and group harmony.

These diverging priorities lead to diverging motivations.

And, according to the following study, a differing degree of self-insight.

Self-Knowledge & Culture

Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, this study by Balcetis, Dunning, and Miller examines how cultural differences influence people’s ability to predict their own behavior in situations with moral or altruistic overtones. 

The researchers found that collectivists were more accurate in their self-predictions compared to individualists. 

In three different studies, individualists overestimated their likelihood to act generously in situations involving redistributing rewards, donating money, or avoiding rude behavior, while collectivists were generally more accurate in their self-predictions. 

Both groups predicted peer behavior with similar accuracy, but even when samples were taken from the same cultural group, collectivists still demonstrated more precise self-predictions than individualists. 

This suggests that the accuracy of social insight and self-insight can be biased by culturally bound motivations.

Results, Discussed

Why do individualists have a harder time predicting their own behavior? 

One theory is that they focus on themselves too much and assume their behavior will be consistent with their personal traits, leading to inaccurate predictions. 

Individualists who are motivated to emphasize personal uniqueness tend to strive to be better than the group, and thus the best strategy for self-prediction is an internal one based on one’s dispositional nature. 

On the other hand, collectivists who prioritize fitting in with the group may be better at predicting their own behavior because they consider external factors and group behavior.

Collectivists are not motivated to emphasize personal uniqueness and instead strive to fit in with a comparison group, so the best approach to take when making predictions about the self is an external one based on distributional, group-level base rates.

Factors such as face-saving may also moderate these patterns of accuracy. 

This highlights how understanding what constitutes normative social behavior can inform personal self-understanding, but cultural differences may prevent people from knowing themselves precisely because they strive to be different from the norm or typical group member.

What is Cultural Psychology? And How Can We Apply It in Business Research?

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do you perceive the world? What are your values? How do they differ from those of your national neighbors?

What makes you happy? Sad? Angry?

What motivates you?

Each one of these answers can differ across cultures. And that’s where cultural psychology comes in.

Cultural Psychology

Cultural psychology is an exciting and rapidly-evolving field that has the potential to transform our understanding of human behavior and social practices across a range of disciplines. 

Cross-cultural business studies is one area in which cultural psychology is being applied. However, there is still a need to fully appreciate the theoretical and methodological convergence between cultural psychology and business-oriented studies.

Cultural psychology has primarily focused on basic processes such as emotion, cognition, and motivation.

Comparatively, social practices have been the focus of organizational and marketing behavior. 

The overlap between these fields can allow cultural psychologists to contribute valuable insights to applied business research.

In the following weeks, we will explore six cultural constructs that have gained significant traction in business research. 

These constructs move beyond basic psychological processes to examine the intricate interactions between culture and social practices. 

We’ve covered several of these in previous posts, but we’ll refresh our memories and look at these constructs from different angles.

What are these constructs, you ask?

Six Cultural Constructs

The six cultural constructs include:

Integrating these cultural constructs into business research can provide a deeper understanding of how cultural factors shape everything from organizational structures to workplace dynamics to consumer behavior. 

Business challenges can be complex, particularly in a cross-cultural setting. This interdisciplinary approach has the potential to generate innovative solutions to cross-cultural communication, diversity management, and organizational performance. 

By leveraging the application of cultural psychology in business research, our understanding of human behavior in diverse settings will be transformed.

Social Capital & Promoting Development in Low-Income Communities

Posted on by Leave a comment

Picture this: You’re driving down a rural road, and suddenly your car breaks down. 

You’re stranded, with no phone signal and no idea what to do. 

But then, a friendly farmer pulls up and offers to help. She calls a mechanic she knows, and within an hour, your car is fixed and you’re back on the road. 

This is an example of social capital at work – the norms and networks that enable people to act collectively.

In their study, “Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy,” Michael Woolcock and Deepa Narayan explore the concept of social capital and its potential for promoting development in low-income communities. 

They argue that social capital can play a crucial role in creating positive outcomes, including economic growth, improved health and education, and reduced crime and violence. 

Let’s see how.

Social Capital, Defined

We’ve covered social capital extensively over the last several weeks, and similarly, the authors of this study define social capital as 

“the norms and networks that enable people to act collectively.” 

They emphasize that social capital is not just about individual connections but also about the broader social norms and institutions that support collective action. 

Some of these norms include trust, reciprocity, and social networks that help create social capital, which can vary by community, region, and country.

Further, the study notes that while bonding social capital can provide social support and a sense of belonging, bridging social capital is particularly important for promoting economic growth and reducing poverty. 

However, bridging social capital can be particularly challenging, as it often requires overcoming social and cultural barriers.

Regardless, social capital can be particularly important for marginalized communities, as it can provide a source of support and resources.

Social Capital vs. Individual Outcomes

According to research, social capital has several advantages over traditional development approaches that focus on individual outcomes or economic growth. 

Social capital can create “public goods” that benefit everyone in a community, which can be self-sustaining over time. 

The authors note that social capital can help to build trust and cooperation within a community, which can be particularly important in post-conflict or post-disaster contexts.

The Cons

While the study makes obvious the many benefits of social capital, it also notes potential pitfalls and emphasizes the need for a nuanced and context-specific approach to promoting it.

Social capital is not a universal remedy for development challenges – there are several potential disadvantages, including the possibility of exclusion and inequality within social networks, the risk of “elite capture” where social capital benefits only a select few, and the potential for social capital to be used for negative purposes such as corruption or discrimination.

Further research into social capital and its potential in low-income communities might give us a clearer idea of how to avoid these pitfalls.

How Can a Cross-Cultural Newcomer Leverage Power Distance to Build Social Capital?

Posted on by 2 Comments

Have you ever started a new job and felt overwhelmed by the social dynamics of the cross-cultural workplace?

Perhaps the structural hierarchy is more rigid than you’re used to?

Or maybe the norm for power dynamics is flat, leaving you confused about who’s in charge and how to gain social capital?

Last week, we talked about how fitting into a new cross-cultural company environment can be difficult, particularly in cases of transitioning from an individualist to a collectivist country – and vice versa.

But on top of that, power distance comes into play when making that transition.

Power distance refers to the degree of inequality among people that a culture considers normal.

Recalling this research from last week, we’ll cover some findings to keep in mind about power distance and social capital.

Person-Organization Fit

Person-organization (PO) fit refers to the extent to which an individual’s values, skills, and goals match those of the organization they work for.

The impact of PO fit on social capital varies depending on the cultural context. 

Not only will collectivism-individualism moderate this relationship but so will power distance.

High Power Distance versus Low Power Distance

Research shows that in cultures where power and influence are highly valued, building social capital is especially important for success.

But, here’s the catch: in high power-distance cultures, the distance between newcomers and their supervisors may be greater, making it harder to build close relationships with those in higher positions.

To combat this, supervisors may need a strong motivation to invest in mentoring and supporting newcomers.

One such motivation could be the similarity between the supervisor and the new hire (PS fit).

In high power-distance cultures, this PS fit may be a crucial factor in building social ties and prompting supervisors to engage in active mentoring.

In contrast, in low power-distance cultures with fewer status differentials, PS fit may not be as crucial for building social capital. 

Supervisors may not need the motivation of PS fit to invest in their subordinates’ social capital building because the absence of status differentials means that everyone has equal access to social networks.

For example, in a start-up company where everyone is on the same level and working towards the same goal, PS fit may not be as important as in a traditional corporate setting where there are hierarchical structures in place.

So, next time you’re hiring or starting a new job in a different cultural context, remember that cultural differences can have a big impact on social dynamics and the importance of PO fit. 

By understanding these differences, you can build stronger relationships and succeed in your new workplace.

How Can a Newbie Leverage Social Capital to Fit into Their Company’s Cross-Cultural Environment?

Posted on by Leave a comment

So, you’ve nailed that job interview and earned your ideal job in a foreign country…

But now you’re worried about whether or not you’ll fit in.

Fitting into a new company environment can be difficult in your own culture, let alone in a foreign one with its cross-cultural complexities.

But don’t fret – while you will certainly have to work at it, this research gives us some ideas about how to build social capital and leverage it to achieve person-job and person-organization fit.

Person-Job/Person-Organization

The study published in the International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management discusses the importance of identifying and recruiting employees who not only possess the necessary knowledge and skills, but also have values that align with those of the organization. 

This is known as person-environment (PE) fit theory, with person-job (PJ) and person-organization (PO) fit being particularly relevant. 

Existing research has largely focused on the outcomes of fit, but the dynamics and interrelationships among different types of fit are not well understood. 

The social dynamics of building and exercising social capital are critical for newcomers to achieve higher levels of fit with their job and organization. 

Two specific dynamics are identified: leveraging person-group and person-supervisor fit to build social capital and using social capital to achieve person-job and person-organization fit.

Person-Group/Person-Supervisor

Without a doubt, developing a good fit with one’s direct supervisor and work group helps new employees to develop structural and relational social capital in the organization, which ultimately leads to greater person-job and person-organization fit.

These social processes, however, are culture-bound. 

For example, a study by Monge and Eisenberg (1987) found that Japanese employees form stronger connections with colleagues than French employees. 

In general, an individual’s cultural background can impact the development and dynamics of their social relationships. 

One aspect of this lies in the two cultural dimensions – individualism-collectivism and power distance – and how they influence social capital building and utilization. 

While these dimensions are not necessarily independent (collectivist societies tend to have higher power distances), they should be treated as distinct concepts.

Let’s take a look at individualism-collectivism first.

Individualism-Collectivism

Collectivism and individualism refer to the extent to which people in a culture prioritize group or individual goals. 

The study found that those in individualist cultures are more selective about forming connections with people who share similar values and personalities, while in collectivist cultures, a broader range of commonalities may be relevant. 

This means that in collectivist cultures, surface-level similarities between individuals may be more important for social capital building, while in individualist cultures, deep-level similarities may be more critical.

The authors argue that in collectivist societies, where members of the in-group are expected to contribute to the benefit of the group rather than engaging in behaviors that reach beyond the group boundary, newcomers with a high level of person-group fit (PG fit) will be less likely to develop social relationships beyond their group in order not to jeopardize their social ties in their immediate work group. 

This means that PG fit will have a weaker effect on building social capital in collectivist societies than in individualist societies. 

In contrast, in individualist societies, competences and social ties are more important in determining the behavior of information exchange, which consequently enhances person-job fit (PJ fit). 

As a result, structural social capital may be more applicable in individualist cultures because it represents an exchangeable resource (in terms of the quantity/quality of ties one possesses). 

In contrast, in collectivist societies, people rely more on affective criteria in framing their exchange behavior, and thus relational social capital matters more in predicting PJ fit through knowledge and information sharing.

Next week, we’ll examine this fit further, in relation to power distance.