Tag: scientific research

Understanding Cultural Differences in Attachment: Insecure-Avoidant vs. Insecure-Resistant

Posted on by Leave a comment

In 1988, researchers Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg conducted a significant meta-analysis that examined attachment behaviors across different cultures. 

We talked a little about it last week.

Their goal was to determine whether attachment styles are universal or if they vary based on cultural influences. 

The researchers analyzed data from 32 cross-cultural studies, all of which used the Strange Situation procedure developed by Mary Ainsworth. 

This method measures attachment types by observing infants’ reactions to separations and reunions with their caregiver.

Methodology and Aims

A meta-analysis compiles findings from previous research to draw broader conclusions, rather than conducting new experiments. 

In this case, Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg focused on studies using the Strange Situation to ensure consistency in their comparisons. 

They included research from eight countries, such as the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and China, allowing for an exploration of both intercultural (between cultures) and intracultural (within a culture) differences in attachment behaviors.

The primary goal was to investigate whether attachment styles – secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant – were consistent across cultures or influenced by cultural norms and practices.

Key Findings on Cultural Differences

The meta-analysis revealed that across all cultures, the majority of infants (about 70%) were securely attached.

However, significant variations emerged between Western and Eastern cultures. 

In Western societies, where independence is highly valued, such as in the United States and European countries, there were higher levels of insecure-avoidant attachments. 

This attachment style is often seen in children who may distance themselves emotionally from their caregivers.

In contrast, Eastern cultures like Japan, which prioritize close family relationships and cooperation, saw higher levels of insecure-resistant attachments. 

This attachment type reflects infants who are more anxious and clingy in their behavior toward caregivers. 

Interestingly, China presented a unique case, with equal numbers of insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant infants.

Intracultural Variation and Child-Rearing Practices

An unexpected finding was that differences within cultures were greater than those between cultures. 

Larger countries like the United States and China, which have diverse populations, showed considerable variation in attachment styles based on factors such as socioeconomic status and race. 

For example, infants from middle-class families tended to exhibit different attachment behaviors compared to those from working-class backgrounds.

The analysis also highlighted how cultural practices influence attachment. 

In Western countries, early separation between mother and child, often due to mothers returning to work, likely contributes to higher levels of insecure-avoidant attachment, as infants experience more stress during separations.

So, while the meta-analysis confirms that secure attachment is the most common style across cultures, aligning with Ainsworth’s and Bowlby’s theories, it also highlights that cultural differences in child-rearing practices can impact attachment styles, leading to variations in behavior.

Attachment Styles & Culture: Are You Secure?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Attachment styles are psychological frameworks that describe how we form and maintain emotional bonds with others, particularly in close relationships. 

These styles are typically developed in early childhood through interactions with caregivers and can significantly influence how we relate to others throughout our lives. 

A 1986 study by Takahashi found that, when using Western attachment style classifications, double the number of Japanese infants were categorized as insecure-resistant when compared with American babies. 

This raises an important question: Are Japanese infants more prone to forming unhealthy attachments, or is the classification system skewed by ethnocentricity?

This issue highlights the need to understand cultural variations in attachment and the complexities involved in studying attachment across different cultures.

Attachment Varies by Culture

Attachment theory in psychology investigates whether attachment styles differ based on cultural practices or whether they are universal. 

According to Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory of Attachment, attachment is an inherent mechanism that ensures infants bond with their caregivers for survival. 

He argued that this attachment serves as a template, or “internal working model,” for all future relationships.

Bowlby’s theory suggests that the drive to develop a secure attachment is a biological, universal trait found in all human infants.

However, many scholars have criticized Bowlby for failing to consider cultural variations in child-rearing practices. 

These cultural differences can significantly influence attachment styles, suggesting that attachment may not be as biologically determined as Bowlby proposed. 

In cultures where different social norms around caregiving exist, attachment behaviors may reflect those norms rather than innate patterns. 

For instance, some cultures might encourage more physical closeness or independence, which could lead to different attachment behaviors.

Assessing Attachment

Mary Ainsworth’s “Strange Situation” is the primary method for assessing attachment styles in infants. 

In this procedure, an infant’s behavior is observed during a series of interactions, such as when a caregiver exits the room, when the infant is left with a stranger, and when the caregiver returns. 

Based on their responses, infants are classified into three categories: secure, insecure-avoidant, or insecure-resistant. 

While the Strange Situation has been extensively used in the U.S. and Europe, it was developed based on middle-class, Western family dynamics, which may not capture the nuances of attachment in non-Western cultures. 

For instance, behaviors classified as insecure-resistant in Japan, such as clinging to a parent, might simply reflect cultural norms of close physical proximity between mother and child.

Cross-Cultural Studies

To explore the validity of Bowlby’s claims, studies have been conducted to compare attachment styles across cultures. 

Cultural variations in attachment refer to differences in social norms around caregiving and how these influence attachment styles. 

These variations can challenge the idea that all infants form attachments in the same way. 

For example, research by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg compared attachment styles across eight countries, showing significant cross-cultural differences. 

While American infants predominantly exhibited secure attachments (as defined by Western standards), other cultures displayed different attachment patterns without negative consequences for children’s emotional development.

Cultural variations in attachment challenge the assumption that attachment styles are universal. 

We’ll explore this further next week.

Detecting Accents: Do Pauses Matter?

Posted on by Leave a comment

When we hear someone speak a foreign language, their accent often stands out as a clear indicator that they are not a native speaker. 

But what exactly makes an accent recognizable? 

For the past couple of weeks, we’ve been talking about how different cultures exhibit varied lengths and frequencies of pauses in speech.

This study takes a look at the pauses that non-native speakers make during speech and explores whether they are a significant contributor to the perception of a foreign accent.

The Role of Pauses in Speech

Pauses are a natural part of any language, but they can vary in duration, frequency, and placement depending on the language being spoken. 

The researchers aimed to determine whether these pauses could be a key factor in identifying a foreign accent. 

To investigate this, they recorded native English speakers and non-native speakers of German or Serbo-Croatian – each highly proficient in English – reading an English text at different speeds. 

The recordings were then analyzed to compare the pauses made by both groups in terms of number, length, and location.

Findings: More Similarities Than Differences

The results were surprising. 

Although native English listeners could clearly identify non-native speakers, the study found that pause patterns had little impact on this identification. 

Both native and non-native speakers showed similar pause durations and ratios of pause time to total speaking time. 

Additionally, when the speed of speech changed, both groups adjusted their pausing behavior in a nearly identical manner. 

As the reading tempo increased, pauses became fewer and shorter; as it slowed, pauses became more frequent and longer. 

This suggests that pauses are not a significant factor in creating a foreign accent.

The One Key Difference: Pause Frequency

The most notable difference between the two groups was the frequency of pauses. 

Non-native speakers paused more often than native speakers. 

This may be due to the additional cognitive effort required when speaking in a second language. 

Even those who are highly proficient might need a bit more time to plan their speech, resulting in more frequent pauses. 

However, these pauses were not longer, nor did they significantly disrupt the flow of speech. 

This indicates that while non-native speakers may pause more often, the nature of these pauses doesn’t heavily contribute to the perception of a foreign accent.

Pauses Are Not the Primary Factor

The findings support the “No Contribution” hypothesis, which suggests that pauses do not significantly influence the acoustic characteristics of non-native speech. 

Pauses are easy to produce and perceptually obvious, so they might be one of the easier aspects of a foreign language to master. 

Alternatively, the similarity in pause patterns between native and non-native speakers could be due to universal cognitive processes that govern speech in any language.

Beyond Pauses: What Really Contributes to Accents?

While this study focused on reading aloud, it opens the door to further research on how pauses function in spontaneous speech and how other elements, such as pronunciation and intonation, play a larger role in the perception of a foreign accent. 

It suggests that while pauses are a noticeable aspect of speech, they are not the primary factor in what makes an accent sound foreign. 

Instead, elements like the pronunciation of specific sounds and the overall rhythm and melody of the language may have a greater impact on how accents are perceived.

To Speak or Not to Speak: The Art of Conversational Timing Across Cultures

Posted on by Leave a comment

Conversation is something we engage in every day without much thought.

Yet, whether we realize it or not, it’s a skill that requires complex timing and rhythm. 

We instinctively know when to speak and when to listen, avoiding awkward pauses or the rudeness of interruption…at least, most of us do. 

But have you ever wondered how these conversational cues differ across cultures? 

A fascinating study, led by Tanya Stivers from the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics and shared by National Geographic, explores this very question, revealing that while there are universal patterns in turn-taking, cultural nuances make a world of difference.

A Universal Rhythm

The study examined spontaneous conversations across ten different languages from diverse cultures, ranging from hunter-gatherers in Namibia to city folk in Japan. 

Despite the wide variety of languages and cultural backgrounds, Stivers found a surprisingly consistent pattern: across all cultures, people tend to avoid talking over each other and aim to minimize pauses between turns. 

Whether it’s in English, Korean, or a Mayan language spoken in Mexico, the rhythm of conversation seems to follow a universal principle of smooth transitions with minimal silence.

Stivers focused specifically on yes/no questions in these languages to maintain a consistent comparison. 

She discovered that the delay between a question and its response followed a similar pattern in all ten languages: most answers were given almost immediately, with very little overlap or delay. 

This finding challenges the stereotype that different cultures have drastically different conversational tempos, such as the supposed lengthy pauses of Scandinavian speakers or the rapid exchanges of New Yorkers.

Cultural Variations in Timing

While the overall pattern of minimizing delays was consistent, there were subtle yet intriguing differences in how long people from different cultures waited before responding. 

For instance, Danish speakers had the longest pauses, with an average delay of about half a second between turns. 

This is still a short amount of time – just long enough to say two syllables in English – but it’s enough to reinforce the stereotype of Scandinavian speakers taking their time. 

On the other hand, Japanese speakers had the shortest pauses, with an average delay of just 7 milliseconds, showcasing a preference for a quicker conversational pace.

Interestingly, these differences in timing weren’t linked to the linguistic structure of the languages. 

For example, in Japanese and Korean, where questions are marked at the end of sentences, you might expect longer pauses, but that wasn’t the case. 

Similarly, languages with question markers at the beginning, like English and Danish, didn’t necessarily lead to quicker responses.

What Counts as a Delay?

Stivers suggests that while all cultures aim to keep conversations flowing smoothly, they have different ideas of what constitutes a delay. 

Independent analysts who observed the conversations classified responses as either late or on time, based on the natural rhythm of each culture. 

For Japanese speakers, a pause of just 36 milliseconds might feel perfectly timed, whereas Danish speakers might not consider a response late unless it’s delayed by 200 milliseconds.

This hypersensitivity to tiny differences in timing highlights how deeply ingrained our conversational habits are. 

To an English speaker, the slightly longer pauses common in Nordic conversations might feel like an eternity, even though they’re only a fraction of a second longer than what they’re used to. 

It’s this sensitivity that makes cultural differences in conversation styles seem more pronounced than they actually are.

The study by Stivers and her team reveals that while there are universal patterns in how we take turns during conversations, culture plays its part in this everyday skill. 

Whether we’re engaging in rapid-fire exchanges or pausing thoughtfully between turns, our conversational timing is shaped by the subtle rhythms of our culture and language. 

Understanding these differences not only enriches our appreciation of our multicultural world but also helps us navigate cross-cultural interactions with greater sensitivity and awareness.

It’s Never Too Late to Apologize: How Apologies are Viewed in Cross-Cultural Business

Posted on by Leave a comment

Is it best to apologize?

Or is it better to not accept blame?

When Apple CEO Tim Cook issued an apology to Chinese customers over warranty policy issues, he committed to addressing and rectifying the problem.

He wrote:

“Dear Chinese consumers:

Over the past two weeks, we have received a lot of feedback about Apple’s repair and warranty policy in China. We have made a profound reflection on these opinions…We are aware that insufficient communication during this process has led to the perception that Apple is arrogant and disregards, or pays little attention to, consumer feedback. We express our sincere apologies for any concern or misunderstanding arising therefrom.”

This gesture underscores the importance of understanding cultural nuances in international business.

Research by Professor William W. Maddux of INSEAD and colleagues highlights how apologies play a crucial role in different cultural contexts. 

In “collectivist cultures” such as China and Japan, apologies are particularly effective in restoring trust, even if the individual apologizing isn’t directly responsible. 

Here’s why.

How Apologies are Viewed

Recent studies have shed light on how apologies function in individual-agency cultures, like the United States, versus collective-agency cultures, such as Japan.

In the United States, apologies are often seen as mechanisms for assigning blame and re-establishing personal credibility. 

This perspective aligns with the American tendency to attribute events to individual actions. 

Conversely, in Japan, apologies are viewed more as general expressions of remorse and are not necessarily linked to assigning blame. 

This reflects the collective nature of Japanese culture, where people tend to attribute events to contextual and group-level factors rather than individual actions.

Consider the case of Akio Toyoda, the Japanese manager who apologized for Toyota’s quality control problems in 2010. 

While Americans might interpret such an apology as an acknowledgment of either competency or integrity issues, Japanese audiences may see it as a normative social gesture, less diagnostic of blame-taking. 

This cultural nuance highlights the importance of understanding the different meanings and implications of apologies in various cultural contexts to navigate negotiations and disputes effectively.

How Often Do We Apologize

Considering how apologies are viewed by each culture, it comes as no surprise that Japanese individuals tend to apologize more.

A study comparing American and Japanese participants revealed that not only do Japanese individuals apologize more frequently, but they were also more likely to apologize for actions they were not directly involved in. 

On the other hand, Americans were more likely to equate apologizing with accepting personal blame. 

This cultural difference has significant implications for trust repair in disputes.

For instance, apologies for integrity violations (such as dishonesty) were more effective in restoring trust among Japanese participants than American ones. 

This is because Japanese individuals are less likely to associate an apology with an acceptance of blame, thus allowing apologies to carry less negative connotations. 

In contrast, apologies for competence violations (such as mistakes in performance) were somewhat more effective for Americans than for the Japanese.

Diffusing Conflicts

As with Tim Cook and his apology to Chinese consumers, these findings highlight the complexity of using apologies as a strategy for trust repair in cross-cultural negotiations. 

In cultures like Japan, where apologies do not necessarily convey blame, individuals can effectively apologize to diffuse conflicts, even if the transgression involves personal integrity and the apologizer is not explicitly at fault. 

However, this approach may not work as well in cultures like the United States, where apologies are closely tied to blame and acknowledgment of low integrity.

By recognizing these cultural differences, negotiators can tailor their apology strategies to fit the cultural expectations of their counterparts, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of trust repair and conflict resolution.

Rethinking Cultural Intelligence: A Different Approach to Measuring CQ

Posted on by Leave a comment

Picture this: you’re attending a conference in Spain. 

During the networking session, you observe how effortlessly your Spanish colleagues engage in animated small talk, weaving in personal anecdotes and humor. 

In contrast, at a similar event in Finland, you noticed that conversations were more reserved and focused on the immediate context, avoiding personal details. 

This difference highlights the dynamics of cross-cultural communication and the pitfalls of applying the “golden rule” – treat others as you would want to be treated – universally.

Cultural Intelligence

This is where cultural intelligence (CQ) comes in.

As cross-cultural interactions become more common, CQ is increasingly recognized as vital for career and organizational success. 

Measuring CQ accurately is essential.

Last week, we discussed a study that measured CQ using a fairly common set of metrics.

But this series of studies seeks to improve CQ measurement.

Traditional CQ

Traditionally, CQ assessments rely heavily on subjective self-evaluations, where individuals rate their own skills and abilities. 

According to the researchers, this approach is akin to IQ tests asking, “On a scale from 1 (I have no clue) to 5 (I know very well), how well do you know the answer to the question ‘2+2=?’?” 

Clearly, self-perception doesn’t always reflect actual capability.

Addressing this limitation, a new CQ instrument adopts a quasi-observational approach. 

Instead of relying on self-reports, it uses observation data to gauge CQ. 

New CQ Tool

The method of this new CQ tool asks respondents to recall specific cross-cultural experiences and describe their behaviors in those situations, providing concrete, measurable anchors for their answers.

For example, the test might ask, “On a recent trip to a new country, how many new words did you learn?” with options like “1-2 new words,” “3-5 new words,” etc. 

This specificity minimizes subjective judgment and ambiguity.

While socially desirable responses can still occur, this approach reduces the likelihood and provides verifiable data.

The instrument begins by asking whether the respondent has traveled internationally and requests details about recent trips.

Priming questions help refresh their memory, such as:

  • “What year(s) did you go there?”
  • “Did you travel for business or pleasure?”
  • “How long did you spend in those countries on average?”

Subsequent questions cover behaviors and outcomes across various dimensions:

For those without international travel experience, a domestic version of the test assesses interactions with people from different cultures within their own country.

Quasi-Observational Approach Improves Accuracy

This quasi-observational approach offers a more accurate assessment of CQ by focusing on observable behaviors and specific experiences rather than subjective self-assessment. 

It aligns more closely with how IQ tests measure intelligence, providing a robust tool for organizations to develop and enhance cultural intelligence among their employees. 

By fostering a high-CQ workforce, businesses can improve productivity, build stronger client relationships, and enhance overall performance in a cross-cultural workplace.

Building Bonds Across Borders: The Crucial Role of Trust in Cross-Cultural Negotiations

Posted on by Leave a comment

Who do you trust? And why?

The answer may be partially rooted in your culture.

Through two eye-opening experiments in a study on cross-cultural differences in trust, researchers examined how people from different cultures build trust with strangers. 

They focused on Americans and Japanese, expecting their trust-building methods to differ. 

And they were right.

American vs. Japanese Trust

For Americans, trust was thought to come from shared group memberships, while for Japanese, it was about having direct or indirect connections with others.

The results confirmed these ideas. 

In both experiments – one involving questions and the other a money-sharing game – Americans trusted people from their in-group more. 

But for the Japanese, something interesting happened: when there was a chance of having an indirect connection with someone outside their group, their trust increased even more than for Americans.

These findings show how cultural backgrounds shape the way we trust others. 

For Americans, it’s about being part of the same group, while for Japanese, it’s more about having connections, even if they’re not direct. 

Understanding these differences is crucial for better communication and relationships across cultures.

And for negotiations.

Understanding the Significance of Trust

In cross-cultural negotiations, trust goes beyond mere reliance on promises or assurances; it reflects a deep-seated belief in the integrity, credibility, and goodwill of one’s counterparts. 

Trust fosters open communication, facilitates collaboration, and enhances the likelihood of reaching mutually satisfactory outcomes. 

Without trust, negotiations may stall, misunderstandings may arise, and relationships may falter.

Strategies for Building Trust Across Cultural Divides

Think about what you learned in the earlier study.

Before negotiations commence, you might consider researching how the culture views trust and attempting to adapt to that view. 

For instance, let’s say you’re a businessperson from the United States negotiating a deal with a company based in Japan. 

In American culture, trust might be primarily based on shared goals or business interests. 

However, in Japanese culture, trust is often built through personal connections and relationships.

To adapt to the Japanese cultural sense of trust, you might prioritize building rapport and establishing personal connections before diving into business discussions. 

This could involve taking the time to engage in small talk, showing genuine interest in your Japanese counterparts’ backgrounds and interests, and demonstrating respect for their cultural norms and customs.

By understanding and adapting to the Japanese view of trust, you can lay the foundation for a more productive and harmonious negotiation process, ultimately increasing the likelihood of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement.

We’ll discuss more strategies for building trust next week.

The Universal Language of Music: A Study of Shared & Divergent Emotions Across Cultures

Posted on by Leave a comment

Music holds a unique position in the human experience.

It transcends language and culture to evoke emotions that resonate deep within us. 

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined music’s impact on our bodies and emotions and investigated its universal appeal and divergence across different cultures.

Mapping Sensations Across Borders

Music has long been recognized for its ability to elicit emotion and bodily responses, from foot tapping to goosebumps. 

But what exactly drives these sensations, and are they consistent across cultures? 

Drawing participants from both Western and East Asian cultures, the study included a range of musical preferences and sensitivities. 

By analyzing responses to a curated selection of songs, researchers sought to uncover patterns in bodily sensations and emotional experiences evoked by different types of music.

The study revealed striking similarities as well as divergent experiences in the way individuals from distinct cultural backgrounds responded to music. 

Despite differences in musical preferences and exposure, participants reported consistent emotional experiences and bodily sensations across various genres and styles of music.

Amidst this harmony of emotions, a notable discrepancy emerged concerning familiarity with the music.

As one might expect, Western participants exhibited a greater familiarity with Western songs, whereas East Asian participants demonstrated a stronger connection to music from their own cultural sphere, reflecting the influence of exposure and upbringing on musical preferences.

Visualizing Musical Effects

Through the use of bodily sensation maps (BSMs), researchers were able to visualize how different musical attributes, such as tempo, rhythm, and melody, influenced participants’ subjective experiences. 

Sad or tender melodies elicited sensations primarily in the head and chest regions, with Western participants particularly experiencing the haunting effects of melancholic tunes in their gut. 

Conversely, danceable and joyful melodies induced sensations distributed across the body, with a concentration of effects in the limbs, reflecting the infectious energy of upbeat rhythms.

Notably, music categorized as aggressive triggered sensations pervading the entire body, with a heightened intensity in the head region. 

This visceral response underscores the profound impact of music on our physiological state, eliciting a holistic bodily experience that mirrors the emotional intensity of the composition.

East Asian participants exhibited more consistent activation in the head, legs, and arms across different musical categories, suggesting a nuanced sensitivity to the varied aspects of music. 

Conversely, Western participants reported a more uniform sensation concentrated in the chest area, particularly pronounced in response to melancholic or tender melodies, reflecting cultural differences in emotional expression and bodily awareness.

Despite these variations, the study revealed a remarkable convergence in the association between musical features and emotional dimensions across cultures. 

Musical attributes such as slight harmonic changes, low roughness, and clear keys were consistently linked to emotions of tenderness and sadness, while complex rhythms and unclear keys evoked feelings of scariness or aggressiveness. 

Implications and Future Directions

Whether it’s Beethoven’s symphonies or traditional Chinese melodies, the language of music speaks to us all in ways that defy cultural divides.

These findings not only underscore the universal language of music but also highlight its profound impact on our emotional and physical well-being. 

By understanding the connection between music, emotions, and bodily sensations, we can gain deeper insights into the human experience and potentially utilize the therapeutic power of music to promote healing and connection across communities.

Cultural Thinking Orientation & the Bullwhip Effect: Does the Way We Make Decisions Impact Supply & Demand?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Economists and researchers have long studied consumer thought and decision-making in order to understand supply and demand.

They’ve uncovered a phenomenon called the “bullwhip effect.”

This is a supply chain event where small oscillations in demand at the retail level result in increasingly larger oscillations in demand at other supplier levels, such wholesale, distributer, raw material, and manufacturer levels.

When you consider this phenomenon, visualize the cracking of a whip.

A small flick of the wrist sends a wave outwards.

Panic-Buying & The Market

One example of the bullwhip effect is panic-buying.

Consider the instinct to buy up all the toilet paper and hand sanitizer during the COVID pandemic. 

As stores struggled to keep their shelves stocked, orders increased, and manufacturers worked hard to meet that demand.

But eventually, they overproduce, as consumers stop panicking and ease up on the supply.

This is one way the bullwhip effect manifests.

But does our cultural thinking orientation influence this, as well?

Researchers of this study were interested in the dynamics of a culture’s holistic versus analytic thinking orientation – and what its relationship is to the bullwhip effect.

The Hypothesis: Holistic Thinking Reduces Bullwhip Effect

The hypothesis of the study posits that a stronger holistic thinking orientation might be associated with a reduction in the bullwhip effect. 

This is because holistic thinkers tend to make more extensive use of information, and higher reported information use might also be linked to a reduced bullwhip effect.

The Study’s Results: The Short Answer is ‘No’

Using the “beer game” – a simulation designed around the complexities of supply chain management – researchers found no evidence supporting the hypothesized relationship between the overall holistic versus analytic thinking orientation and the bullwhip effect.

One possible explanation for this lack of correlation could be cognitive limitations faced by individuals when dealing with an abundance of information in the beer game. 

If both holistic and analytic thinkers have similar cognitive capacities, neither thinking orientation may have an advantage in handling the overwhelming information. 

As a result, even if holistic thinkers focused more on contextual information, they might not integrate it into decision-making to a greater extent than analytic thinkers due to these cognitive constraints. 

This is further supported by the finding that the thinking orientation did not correlate with the reported use of information, indicating that both groups utilized available contextual information similarly.

What the research found was that thinking orientation didn’t impact this relationship on the whole…although, it did impact the decision-making of different subdomains of thinkers.

The Subdomains

A negative correlation was observed between a specific subdomain of the holistic versus analytic thinking orientation and the bullwhip effect. 

This indicates that certain aspects of decision-makers‘ thinking styles might indeed influence supply chain variability.

When considering the subdomains of the holistic versus analytic thinking orientation, the relationship between the subdomain concerning causal attribution and the bullwhip effect stood out. 

Decision-makers who assumed less complex causal relationships performed worse in terms of the bullwhip effect.

Moreover, the study revealed that holistic thinking did not correlate with reported information use. 

Instead, only the reported use of specific information demonstrated a negative association with the bullwhip effect. 

This finding implies that the nature and relevance of the information being utilized might be critical in mitigating supply chain fluctuations.

This study of the dynamics within supply chains can serve as a basis for developing more effective strategies to manage demand variability.

A balanced combination of holistic and analytic thinking might yield the most beneficial outcomes, with a focus on immediate processes (analytic thinking) while considering more distant processes to some extent (holistic thinking).

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.