Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-kv5sj Total loading time: 0.225 Render date: 2021-09-27T19:31:10.841Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

A Measurement Model for Dignity, Face, and Honor Cultural Norms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2017

Jingjing Yao*
Affiliation:
IESEG School of Management, France
Jimena Ramirez-Marin
Affiliation:
IESEG School of Management, France
Jeanne Brett
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, USA
Soroush Aslani
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Whitewater, USA
Zhaleh Semnani-Azad
Affiliation:
Clarkson University, USA
*
Corresponding author: Jingjing Yao (j.yao@ieseg.fr)

Abstract

In this work we develop and validate a model measuring norms that distinguish three types of culture: dignity, face, and honor (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Our motivation is to produce empirical evidence for this new cultural framework and use the framework to explain cultural differences in interdependent social interactions such as negotiation. In two studies, we establish the content validity, construct validity, predictive validity, and measurement invariance of this measurement model. In Study 1, we present the model's three-factor structure and situate the constructs of dignity, face, and honor in a nomological network of cultural constructs. In Study 2, which uses a sample of participants from 26 cultures, we show that the measurement model discriminates among people from the three cultural regions corresponding to the dignity, face, and honor framework. In particular, we report differences between face and honor cultures, which are not distinguished in other cultural frameworks (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). We also show that the measurement model accounts for cultural differences in norms for use of negotiation strategy.

摘要:

摘要:

在这篇文章中, 我们开发和验证了一个模型来测量和区分三种文化:尊严文化、面子文化和荣誉文化 (Leung & Cohen, 2011) 。我们的目的是为这个新的文化理论框架提供实证数据, 并用这个框架来解释相互依赖的社会互动 (例如谈判) 中存在的文化差异。在两个子研究中, 我们检验了该测量模型的内容效度、构念效度、预测效度、和测量不变性。在子研究1中, 我们提出了模型的三因素结构, 将尊严、面子和荣誉这三个构念放置在一个文化构念的理论命题网络中。在子研究2中, 我们使用了来自26个文化的样本, 发现此测量模型能有效区分尊严、面子和荣誉文化框架相对应的三个文化区域的人。值得注意的是, 我们报告了面子文化和荣誉文化之间的差异, 而这两者在其他文化框架中没有被区分开来 (例如, Hofstede, 1980) 。我们还发现, 这个测量模型可以解释谈判中人们使用的规范性策略。

प्रस्तुत अध्ययन में हम गरिमा, इज़्ज़त (face), व प्रतिष्ठा आधारित तीन प्रकार की संस्कृतियों में विभेद करने के लिए एक आदर्श का विकास व पुष्टि की है (ल्यूंग व कोहेन, 2011). हमारा लक्ष्य इस नवीन प्रतिदर्श के लिए अनुभवजन्य साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करना और फिर इस आदर्श को संधिक्रम जैसी अन्योन्याश्रित सामाजिक अन्तःक्रिया में सांस्कृतिक अंतर समझने के लिए करना है. अपने दोनों अध्ययनों में हमने इस आदर्श की तत्व, संरचना, भविष्यपरक वैधता, व मापन की अविविधता स्थापित की है. प्रथम अध्ययन में हमने आदर्श की त्रि-आयामी संरचना को प्रस्तुत किया है और गरिमा, इज़्ज़त, व प्रतिष्ठा की सांस्कृतिक संरचना के नियम-प्रतिरूपों में स्थित किया है. दूसरे अध्ययन में जिसमें 26 संस्कृतियों के प्रतिदर्शों का प्रयोग किया गया है, हमने दिखाया है की यह आदर्श गरिमा, इज़्ज़त (face) व प्रतिष्ठा रूपरेखा के अनुसार व्यक्तियों में तीन सांस्कृतिक क्षेत्रों के आधार पर विभेद करता है. विशेष तौर पर हमने face व प्रतिष्ठा सम्बद्ध संस्कृतियों में विभेद प्रस्तुत किया है, जिनका अन्य सांस्कृतिक रूपरेखाओं में विभेद नहीं किया गया है (उदाहरणतः हॉफ़स्टेड, 1980). हमने यह भी दिखाया है कि यह मापन आदर्श संधिक्रम रणनीति में प्रयुक्त मानकों में अंतर दिखाता है.

Sumário:

SUMÁRIO:

Neste trabalho, desenvolvemos e validamos um modelo que mede normas que distinguem três tipos de cultura: dignidade, face e honra (Leung & Cohen, 2011).

Nossa motivação é produzir evidências empíricas para este novo modelo de cultura e usar o modelo para explicar diferenças culturais nas interações sociais interdependentes, como a negociação. Em dois estudos, estabelecemos a validade do conteúdo, validade de construto, validade preditiva e invariância de medição deste modelo de medição. No Estudo 1, apresentamos a estrutura de três fatores do modelo e definimos os construtos de dignidade, face e honra em uma rede nomológica de construtos culturais. No Estudo 2, que utiliza uma amostra de participantes de 26 culturas, mostramos que o modelo de medição discrimina entre pessoas das três regiões culturais correspondentes ao modelo de dignidade, face e honra. Em particular, relatamos diferenças entre culturas de face e de honra, que não se distinguem em outros modelos culturais (por exemplo, Hofstede, 1980). Também mostramos que o modelo de medição contabiliza diferenças culturais nas normas para o uso da estratégia de negociação.

Аннотация:

Аннотация:

В этой работе мы разрабатываем и тестируем модель для измерения норм, которые свойственны трем типам культуры: достоинство, лицо и честь (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Наша цель заключается в том, чтобы подготовить эмпирические данные для этой новой культурной концепции, а также использовать её для объяснения культурных различий в контексте социальных взаимодействий, таких как переговоры. В двух исследованиях устанавливаются контентная и конструктная валидность, прогностическая достоверность и инвариантность этой измерительной модели. В первом исследовании мы представляем структуру модели из трех факторов и определяем понятия достоинства, лица и чести в номологической сети культурных понятий. Во втором исследовании, которое основано на выборке участников из 26 культур, мы показываем, что данная модель выявляет различия среди людей из трех культурных регионов, которые соответствуют понятиям достоинства, лица и чести. В частности, мы обнаружили отличия между культурами лица и чести, которые не различаются в других культурных моделях (см., напр.: Hofstede 1980). Мы также показываем, что данная измерительная модель учитывает культурные нормативные различия в стратегии переговоров.

Resumen:

RESUMEN:

En este trabajo desarrollamos y validamos un modelo para la medición de normas que distingue tres tipos de cultura: dignidad, rostro, y honor (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Nuestra motivación es producir evidencias empíricas para este nuevo marco cultural y usar el marco para explicar las diferencias culturales en interacciones sociales interdependientes como la negociación. En dos estudios, establecimos la validez del contenido, la validez del constructo, la validez predictiva, y la invarianza de la medida de este modelo de medición. En el Estudio 1, presentamos la estructura de tres factores del modelo y situamos los constructos de dignidad, rostro y honor en una red nomológica de constructos culturales. En el Estudio 2, en el cual usamos una amplia muestra de participantes de 26 culturas, mostramos que el modelo de medición discrimina entre personas de tres regiones culturales correspondiente al modelo de dignidad, rostro, y honor. En particular, reportamos las diferencias entre las culturas de rostro y honor, las cuales no se distinguen en otros marcos culturales (e.g., Hofstede 1980). También mostramos que el modelo de medición explica las diferencias culturales en las normas para el uso de la estrategia de negociación.

Type
Special Issue Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. 2003. The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (1): 1828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adair, W. L., Brett, J. M., Lempereur, A., Okumura, T., Shikhirev, P., Tinsley, C., & Lytle, A. 2004. Culture and negotiation strategy. Negotiation Journal, 20 (1): 87111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adam, H., Shirako, A., & Maddux, W. W. 2010. Cultural variance in the interpersonal effects of anger in negotiations. Psychological Science, 21 (6): 882889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. 1977. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84 (5): 888918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aslani, S., Ramirez-Marin, J., Brett, J., Yao, J., Semnani-Azad, Z., Zhang, Z. X., . . . & Adair, W. 2016. Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37 (8): 11781201.Google Scholar
Aslani, S., Ramirez-Marin, J., Semnani-Azad, Z., Brett, J. M., & Tinsley, C. 2013. Dignity, face, and honor cultures: Implications for negotiation and conflict management. In Olekalns, M. & Adair, W. L. (Eds.), Handbook of research on negotiation: 249282. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayers, E. 1984. Vengeance and justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. D., Brown, R. P., & Osterman, L. L. 2012. Don't tread on me masculine honor ideology in the US and militant responses to terrorism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38 (8): 10181029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, J. M. 2014. Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Brett, J. M., & Crotty, S. 2008. Culture and negotiation. In Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., & Thomas, D. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural management research: 269–283. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Brett, J. M., & Okumura, T. 1998. Inter-and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (5): 495510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, J. M., Adair, W., Lempereur, A., Okumura, T., Shikhirev, P., Tinsley, C., & Lytle, A. 1998. Culture and joint gains in negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 14 (1): 6186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brett, J. M., Weingart, L. R., & Olekalns, M. 2003. Baubles, bangles, and beads: Modeling the evolution of negotiating groups over time. In Lyons, S. B. & Mannix, B. (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: Time in groups: 3964. London: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. 1989. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105 (3): 456466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W. Y., McBride, C., & Mol, S. T. 2016. Students’ sense of belonging at school in 41 countries: Cross-cultural variability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47 (2): 175196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. 1991. A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24: 201234.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology: 151192. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. 1997. Field experiments examining the culture of honor: The role of institutions in perpetuating norms about violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 (11): 11881199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. 2003. Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (5): 894908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrichs, J. 2016. An intercultural theory of international relations: How self-worth underlies politics among nations. International Theory, 8 (1): 6396.Google Scholar
Gunia, B. C., Brett, J. M., & Gelfand, M. J. 2016. The science of culture and negotiation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8: 7883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunia, B. C., Brett, J. M., Nandkeolyar, A. K., & Kamdar, D. 2011. Paying a price: Culture, trust, and negotiation consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (4): 774789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. 1996. Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In Higgins, E. T. & Sorrentino, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context: 2884. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F. 2012. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Available from URL: http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. 2014. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67 (3): 451470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heine, S. J. 2001. Self as cultural product: An examination of East Asian and North American selves. Journal of Personality, 69 (6): 881906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. 1993. Towards a single-process uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups. In Hogg, M. A. & Abrams, D. (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives: 173190. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (1): 8598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2000. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Lawshe, C. H. 1975. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28 (4): 563575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. I., Leung, A. K., & Kim, Y. H. 2014. Unpacking East–West differences in the extent of self-enhancement from the perspective of face versus dignity culture. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8 (7): 314327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, A. K. Y., & Cohen, D. 2011. Within and between culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (3): 507526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leung, K. 1997. Negotiation and reward allocation across cultures. In Earley, P. C. & Erez, M. (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology: 640675. San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.Google Scholar
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. 1989. On the empirical identification of dimensions for cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20 (2): 133151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. 2009. Psychological aspects of social axioms: Understanding global belief systems. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, K., & Morris, M. W. 2015. Values, schemas, and norms in the culture–behavior nexus: A situated dynamics framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (9): 10281050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. 2008. Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 (2): 161177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, L. A., Friedman, R., Barry, B., Gelfand, M., & Zhang, Z. X. 2012. The dynamics of consensus building in intracultural and intercultural negotiations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57 (2): 269304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lügger, K., Geiger, I., Neun, H., & Backhaus, K. 2015. When East meets West at the bargaining table: Adaptation, behavior and outcomes in intra-and intercultural German–Chinese business negotiations. Journal of Business Economics, 85 (1): 1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98 (2): 224253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. 1995. Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16 (2): 127142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, M. W., Hong, Y., Chiu, C. & Liu, Z. 2015. Normology: Integrating insights about social norms to understand cultural dynamics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129: 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. & Cohen, D. 1996. Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. 2003. Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30 (6): 599624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. 2003. Testing the relationships among negotiators’ motivational orientations, strategy choices, and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39 (2): 101117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2002. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (1): 372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitt-Rivers, J. 1968. Honor. In Sills, D. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences: 509510. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Raiffa, H. 1982. The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rensvold, R. B., & Cheung, G. W. 2001. Testing for metric invariance using structural equation models: Solving the standardization problem. In Schriesheim, C. A. & Neider, L. L. (Eds.), Research in management: Vol. 1. Equivalence in measurement: 2150. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. R. 2013. In the name of honor: On virtue, reputation and violence. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16 (3): 271278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. R., Fischer, A. H., Manstead, A. S. R., & Zaalberg, R. 2008. Attack, disapproval, or withdrawal? The role of honour in anger and shame responses to being insulted. Cognition and Emotion, 22 (8): 14711498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. R., Manstead, A. S., & Fischer, A. H. 2000. The role of honor-related values in the elicitation, experience, and communication of pride, shame, and anger: Spain and the Netherlands compared. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (7): 833844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. R., Manstead, A. S., & Fischer, A. H. 2002. The role of honour concerns in emotional reactions to offences. Cognition & Emotion, 16 (1): 143163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values. Journal of Social Issues, 50 (4): 1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severance, L., & Gelfand, M. J. 2015. A preliminary measure of honor, face, and dignity orientations. Working paper. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M. J., & Kim, K. 2009. Peering into the ‘Magnum Mysterium’ of Culture: The explanatory power of descriptive norms. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40 (1): 4669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trompenaars, F. 1993. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. Homewood, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. 2003. Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (5), 9971010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. 2000. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3 (1): 470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. 1997a. Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Cross-cultural psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. 1997b. Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., & Pandey, J. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: 257300. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Wagner, J. A. 1995. Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1): 152173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingart, L. R., Thompson, L. L., Bazerman, M. H., & Carroll, J. S. 1990. Tactical behavior and negotiation outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1 (1): 731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, K., & Simpson, B. 2013. When do (and don't) normative appeals influence sustainable consumer behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 77 (2): 7895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zou, X., Tam, K. P., Morris, M. W., Lee, S. L., Lau, I. Y. M., & Chiu, C. Y. 2009. Culture as common sense: Perceived consensus versus personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (4): 579597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Measurement Model for Dignity, Face, and Honor Cultural Norms
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A Measurement Model for Dignity, Face, and Honor Cultural Norms
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A Measurement Model for Dignity, Face, and Honor Cultural Norms
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *