Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Cultural Values Versus Cultural Norms as Predictors of Differences in Helping Behaviors and in Emotion Regulation: A Preliminary Nation-Level Test Related to the Leung-Morris Model

  • Peter B. Smith (a1)
Abstract
ABSTRACT

Leung and Morris (2015) propose conditions under which values, norms, and schemata drive cultural differences in behavior. They build on past theories about dimensions of situational strength to propose that personal values drive behavior more in weak situations and perceived norms drive behavior more in strong situations. Drawing on this analysis as well as two recent models of cultural tightness-looseness, country-level effects are predicted on the assumption that tighter cultures more frequently create strong situations and looser cultures more frequently create weak situations. Using secondary data, I examine values as well as perceived descriptive norms and injunctive norms relevant to collectivism in relation to two key dependent measures: helping strangers and emotion regulation. The relation of embeddedness values to helping strangers is moderated negatively by tightness (in that high embeddedness reduces helping less in the context of tightness), and its relation to emotion regulation is moderated positively (in that embeddedness increases emotion regulation more in the context of tightness). Furthermore, descriptive norms show main effects for both dependent variables that are predominantly unmoderated by tightness. Finally, the link of injunctive norms with emotion regulation is moderated positively by tightness (in that injunctiveness heightens emotion regulation more in the context of tightness). Results support the relevance of nation-level tightness to reliance on values and norms, but the strength of effects depends on how it is operationalized.

摘要:

Leung and Morris (2015) 提出价值观、规范和图式驱动不同文化背景下行为差异的条件。基于以往有关情境强度维度的理论, 他们认为个人价值观在弱情境下对行为的影响要大于在强情境下的影响。根据这个分析以及最近的两个文化严密-疏松模型, 假定严密文化更多地产生强情境、而疏松文化则更多地产生弱情境, 我对于国家层面的效应进行了预测。采用二手数据考查了与集体主义有关的价值观以及感知到的描述性规范和指令性规范与两个重要的因变量测量的关系:帮助陌生人和情绪调控。嵌入性价值观与帮助陌生人之间的关系受到文化严密性的负向调节 (即高嵌入性在严密性的情境下更少地减弱助人行为) , 而嵌入性与情绪调控之间的关系受到文化严密性的正向调节 (即嵌入性在严密性的情境下更能增强情绪调控) 。进一步的发现表明, 描述性规范对于助人行为和情绪调控都具有主效应, 明显不受到严密性的调节。最后, 指令性规范与情绪调控之间的关系受到严密性的正向调节 (即指令性规范在严密性情境下更能提高情绪调控) 。这些结果支持了国家层面的严密性与文件价值观和文化规范之间的关联性, 但这种效应的强度则取决于如何对严密性进行操作化。

ल्यूंग व मॉरिस (2015) ने उन स्थितियों का प्रस्ताव किया है जिनमें सांस्कृतिक मूल्य, कायदे व प्रारूप व्यवहार में सांस्कृतिक अंतरों को संचालित करते हैं. ल्यूंग व मॉरिस (2015) ने उन स्थितियों का प्रस्ताव किया है जिनमें सांस्कृतिक मूल्य, कायदे व प्रारूप व्यवहार में सांस्कृतिक अंतरों को संचालित करते हैं. पारिस्थितिकीय तीव्रता के पूर्व सिद्धांतों के आधार पर वे ये प्रस्तावित करते हैं की कमज़ोर स्थिति में निजी मूल्य और दृढ परिस्थितियों में अनुभूत कायदे व्यवहार को अधिक संचालित करते हैं. इस विश्लेषण तथा सांस्कृतिक सघनता-शिथिलता के दो सम्प्रति शोध मॉडल के आधार पर राष्ट्र स्तरीय प्रभाव इस मान्यता पर पूर्वानुमानित किये गए हैं की सघन संस्कृति बहुधा सघन परिस्थितियों को जन्म देती है और शिथिल संस्कृति बहुधा ढीली स्थितियों को जन्म देती है. सहायक आकड़ों के आधार पर हमने मूल्यों तथा अनुभूत विवरणात्मक व निषेधात्मक कायदों का सामूहिकता उपयुक्त दो आश्रित मापदंडों के सन्दर्भ में आकलन किया है: अपरिचितों की सहायता करना व संवेदना नियंत्रण. सन्निहित मूल्यों का अपरिचितों की सहायता करने का सम्बन्ध सघनता से नकारात्मक रूप से संयमित है (अर्थात तीव्र सन्निहितता सघन सन्दर्भ में अपरिचितों की सहायता करना सीमित करती है) एवं संवेदना नियंत्रण का सम्बन्ध सघनता से सकारात्मक रूप से संयमित है (अर्थात सन्निहितता सघन सन्दर्भ में संवेदना नियंत्रण की संवृद्धि करती है). साथ ही विवरणात्मक कायदे सघनता से असंयमित दोनों आश्रित चरों पर मुख्य प्रभाव दिखते हैं. अंततः निषेधात्मक कायदों व संवेदना नियंत्रण का सम्बन्ध सघनता से सकारात्मक रूप से संयमित है (अर्थात सघन सन्दर्भ में निषेधात्मकता संवेदना नियंत्रण में वृद्धि करती है). यह परिणाम राष्ट्र स्तरीय सघनता के मूल्यों व कायदों पर विश्वास को सुदृढ़ करते हैं, लेकिन इनकी प्रभविष्णुता क्रियान्वयन प्रक्रिया पर निर्भर है.

SUMÁRIO:

Leung e Morris (2015) propõem condições em que valores, normas e esquemas geram diferenças culturais no comportamento. Eles criam a partir de teorias passadas sobre dimensões da força situacional para propor que valores pessoais mais influenciam o comportamento em situações fracas e normas percebidas mais influenciam o comportamento em situações fortes. Com base nessa análise, bem como em dois modelos recentes de aperto-frouxidão cultural, efeitos a nível de país são previstos com o pressuposto de que culturas mais apertadas criam mais frequentemente situações fortes e culturas mais flexíveis criam frequentemente situações mais fracas. Usando dados secundários, examino valores, bem como normas descritivas percebidas e normas de injunção relevantes ao coletivismo em relação a duas medidas dependentes chave: ajuda a estranhos e regulação emocional. A relação de valores impregnados para ajudar estranhos é moderada negativamente pelo aperto (no sentido em que elevada impregnação reduz a menor ajuda no contexto do aperto), e sua relação com a regulação emocional é moderada positivamente (no sentido em que a impregnação aumenta a regulação emocional mais no contexto do aperto). Além disso, as normas descritivas mostram os efeitos principais para ambas as variáveis dependentes que são predominantemente não moderadas pelo aperto. Finalmente, o vínculo das normas injuntivas com a regulação emocional é moderado positivamente pelo aperto (no sentido em que a injunção aumenta a regulação emocional mais no contexto do aperto). Os resultados suportam a relevância do aperto no nível nacional para a confiança em valores e normas, mas a força dos efeitos depende de como é operacionalizada.

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Леунг и Моррис (2015) предлагают условия, при которых ценности, нормы и схемы влияют на культурные различия в поведении. Используя признанные теории о критериях ситуативной устойчивости, авторы предполагают, что личностные ценности в большей степени влияют на поведение в слабых ситуациях, тогда как нормы скорее формируют поведение в сильных ситуциях. На основании этого анализа, а также двух новых моделей о культурной плотности, можно сделать предположение о результатах на национальном уровне, а именно, что более плотные культуры чаще создают сильные ситуации, а менее плотные культуры чаще создают слабые ситуации. Используя вторичные данные, я рассматриваю ценности, а также восприятие описательных и запретительных норм, которые имеют отношение к коллективизму, для двух ключевых показателей: оказание помощи незнакомцам и регулированию эмоций. В условиях высокой плотности культуры, усиливается обратная взаимосвязь между ценностями социальной включенности и оказанием помощи незнакомцам (в том смысле, что высокая включенность еще более сокращает вероятность оказания помощи), тогда как положительное влияние на регулирование эмоций гораздо более выражено (т.е. высокая включенность значительно усиливает регуляцию эмоций в контексте высокой плотности). Кроме того, описательные нормы имеют особое значение для обоих зависимых переменных, которые преимущественно не зависят от плотности. Наконец, существует прямая взаимосвязь между запретительными нормами и регулированием эмоций в условиях плотности (т.е. запрет значительно усиливает регулирование эмоций). Наши результаты подтверждают важность критерия культурной плотности на национальном уровне в отношении ценностей и норм, однако это взаимоотношение зависит от конкретных условий функционирования.

RESUMEN:

Leung y Morris (2015) proponen condiciones bajo los cuales los valores, las normas y los esquemas conducen las diferencias culturales en el comportamiento. Se basan en teorías pasadas sobre las dimensiones de la fortaleza situacional para proponer que los valores personales conducen el comportamiento más en situaciones débiles y las normas percibidas conducen el comportamiento más en situaciones fuertes. Basándose en este análisis y también en dos modelos recientes de hermeticidad cultural, los efectos a nivel país se predicen bajo el supuesto de que las culturas más herméticas con más frecuencia crean situaciones fuertes y las culturas menos herméticas con más frecuencia crean situaciones débiles. Utilizando datos secundarios, examino los valores y también las normas descriptivas percibidas y las normas cautelares relevantes al colectivismo en relación con dos medidas dependientes clave: ayudar a los extraños y la regulación emocional. La relación de la incrustación de valores para ayudar a extraños es moderada negativamente con la hermeticidad (en cuanto que la alta incrustación reduce el ayudar menos en el contexto de hermeticidad), y su relación con la regulación emocional es moderada positivamente (en cuanto que la incrustación aumenta más la regulación de la emoción en el contexto de hermeticidad). Además, las normas descriptivas muestran efectos principales para tanto las variables dependientes que son predominantemente inmoderadas por la hermeticidad. Finalmente, el vínculo de las normas cautelares con la regulación de la emoción es moderada positivamente con hermeticidad (en cuanto la cautela refuerza más la regulación de la emoción en el contexto de la hermeticidad). Los resultados apoyan la relevancia de la hermeticidad a nivel nacional en la confianza en valores y normas, pero la fuerza de los efectos depende de cómo esta se operacionaliza.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Aktas M., Gelfand M. J., & Hanges P. 2016. Cultural tightness-looseness and perceptions of leadership. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47 (2): 294309.
Allik J., & Realo A. 2004. Individualism-collectivism and social capital. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35 (1): 2949.
Boldt E. D. 1978. Structural tightness and cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9 (2): 151165.
Bond M. H., & Lun V. M. 2014. Citizen-making: The role of national goals for socializing children. Social Science Research, 44: 7585.
Carpenter S. 2000. Effects of cultural tightness and collectivism on self-concept and causal attributions. Cross-Cultural Research, 34 (1): 3856.
Chan D., Gelfand M., Triandis H. C., & Tzeng O. 1996. Tightness-looseness revisited: Some preliminary analyses in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Psychology, 31 (1): 112.
Chen Y. R., Brockner J., & Katz T. 1996. Towards an explanation of cultural differences in in-group favoritism: The role of individual versus collective primacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (3): 613625.
Chen Y. Y., & Hong Y. Y. 2015. Different ways to resolve the discrepancy between descriptive and injunctive norms across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46 (10): 13161319.
Cialdini R. B., Kallgren C. A., & Reno R. R. 1991. A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and re-evaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In Zanna M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 24: 201234. New York: Academic Press.
Dovidio J., Piliavin J., Schroeder & Penner L. 2006. The social psychology of pro-social behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
English T., & Chen S. 2007. Culture and self-concept stability: Consistency across and within contexts among Asian Americans and European Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 (3): 478490.
Fischer R., Ferreira M. C., Assmar E., Redford P., Harb C., Glazer S., Cheng B.-S., Jiang D.-Y., Wong C. C., Kumar N., Kärtner J., Hofer J., & Achoui M. 2009. Individualism–collectivism as descriptive norms: Development of a subjective norm approach to culture measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40 (2): 187213.
Fischer R., & Schwartz S. H. 2011. Whence differences in value priorities? Individual, cultural, or artifactual sources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42 (7): 11271144.
Gelfand M. J., & Harrington J. 2015. The motivational force of descriptive norms: For whom and when are descriptive norms most predictive of behavior? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46 (10): 12791286.
Gelfand M. J., Raver J. L., Nishii L., Leslie L. M., Lun J., Lim B. C., Duan L., Almaliach A., Ang S., Arnadottir J., Aycan Z., Boehnke K., Boski P., Cabecinhas R., Chan D., Chhokar J., D'Amato A., Ferrer M., Fischlmayr I. C., Fischer R., Fülöp M., Georgas J., Kashima E. S., Kashima Y., Kim K., Lempereur A., Marquez P., Othman R., Overlaet B., Panagiotopoulou P., Peltzer K., Perez-Florizno L. R., Ponomarenko L., Realo A., Schei V., Schmitt M., Smith P. B., Soomro N., Szabo E., Taveesin N., Toyama M., Van de Vliert E., Vohra N., Ward C., & Yamaguchi S. 2011. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332 (6033): 11001104.
Haidt J. 2008. Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 (1): 6572.
Harding S., & Phillips D. 1986. Contrasting clues in Western Europe: Unity, diversity and change. London: MacMillan.
Hofstede G. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede G. 2006. What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6): 882896.
Hong Y.-Y., Morris M. W., Chiu C.-Y., & Benet-Martínez V. 2000. Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55 (7): 709720.
House R. J., Hanges P. J., Javidan M., Dorfman P. W., Gupta V. & associates GLOBE. 2004. Leadership, culture and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inglehart R., & Oyserman D. 2004. Individualism, autonomy and self-expression: The human development syndrome. In Vinken H., Soeters J., & Ester P. (Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective: 7496. Leiden, NL: Brill.
Kay A. C., Gaucher D., Peach J. M., Laurin K., Friesen J., Zanna M. P., & Spencer S. J. 2009. Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (3): 421434.
Knafo A., Schwartz S. H., & Levine R. 2009. Helping strangers is lower in embedded cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40 (5): 875879.
Leung K., & Bond M. H. 1984. The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (4): 793804.
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.
Levine R. V., Norenzayan A., & Philbrick K. 2001. Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (5): 543560.
Matsumoto D., & Hwang H. S. 2012. Culture and emotion: The integration of biological and cultural contributions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43 (1): 91118.
Matsumoto D., Yoo S. H., Fontaine J., Anguas-Wong A. S., Arriola M., Ataca B., Bond M. H., Boratav H., Breugelmans S., Cabecinhas R., Chae J., Chin W., Comunian A., Degere D., Djunaidi A., Fok H., Friedlmeier W., Ghosh A., Glamcevski M., Granskaya J., Groenvynck H., Harb C., Haron F., Joshi R., Kakai H., Kashima E., Khan W., Kurman J., Kwantes C., Mahmud S., Mandaric M., Nizharadze G., Odusanya J., Ostrosky-Solis F., Palaniappan A., Papastylianou D, Safdar S., Setiono K., Shigemasu E., Singelis T., Solcova Iva P., Spiess E., Sterkowicz S., Sunar D., Szarota P., Vishnivetz B., Vohra N., Ward C., Wong S., Wu R., Zebian Z., Zengaya A., Altarriba J., Bauer L., Mogaji A., Siddiqui R., Fulop M., Garcia Bley L., Alexandre J., Garcia F., & Grossi E. 2008. Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40 (1): 5574.
Mischel W. 1973. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80 (4): 252283.
Morris M. W. 2014. Values as the essence of culture: Foundation or fallacy? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45 (1): 1424.
Morris M. W., Hong Y. Y., Chiu C. Y., & Liu Z. 2015. Normology: Integrating insights about social norms to understand cultural dynamics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129: 113.
Omoto A. M., & Snyder M. 2010. Influences of psychological sense of community on voluntary helping and pro-social action. In Stürmer S. & Snyder M. (Eds.), The psychology of pro-social behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations and helping: 223243. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pelto P. J. 1968. The difference between ‘tight’ and ‘loose’ societies. Transaction, 5: 3740.
Robinson W. S. 1950. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15 (3): 351357.
Schug J., Yoo S. H., & Atreya G. 2017. Norms regulating emotional expressions relate to national level generalized trust. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11 (1): 2335.
Schwartz S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25: 165. Orlando, FL: Academic.
Schwartz S. H. 2004. Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In Vinken H., Soeters J., & Ester P. (Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective: 4373. Leiden, NL: Brill.
Schwartz S. H. 2011. Studying values, personal adventure, future directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42 (2): 307319.
Shteynberg G., Gelfand M. J., & Kim K. 2009. Peering into the ‘magnum mysterium’ of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40 (1): 4669.
Smith P. B. 2004. Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35 (1): 5061.
Smith P. B. 2011. Communication styles as dimensions of national culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42 (2): 216233.
Smith P. B. 2015a. To lend helping hands: In-group favoritism, uncertainty avoidance and the national frequency of pro-social behaviors. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46 (6): 759771.
Smith P. B. 2015b. Yes, subjective norms are important but let's not lose sight of cultural differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46 (10): 13101313.
Smith P. B., Dugan S., & Trompenaars F. 1996. National culture and managerial values: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27 (2): 231264.
Taras V., Kirkman B. L., & Steel P. 2010. Examining the impact of culture's consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (3): 405439.
Taras V., Steel P., & Kirkman B. L. 2010. Negative practice–value correlations in the GLOBE data: Unexpected findings, questionnaire limitations and research directions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (8): 13301338.
Uz I. 2015. The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46 (3): 319335.
Vauclair C. M., & Fischer R. 2011. Do cultural values predict individuals' moral attitudes? A cross-cultural multilevel approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41 (5): 645657.
Vauclair C. M., Fischer R., Ferreira M. C., Guerra V., Hossler U., Karabati S., de Carvalho Filho M., Porto J., Reyes M. L., Ritkonen J., & Spiess E. 2015. What kinds of value motives guide people in their moral attitudes? The role of personal and prescriptive values at the culture level and individual level. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46 (2): 211228.
Welzel C. 2010. How selfish are self-expression values? A civicness test. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41 (2): 152174.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Management and Organization Review
  • ISSN: 1740-8776
  • EISSN: 1740-8784
  • URL: /core/journals/management-and-organization-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
PDF
Translated abstracts

Smith supplementary material
Translated abstracts

 PDF (53 KB)
53 KB
PDF
Translated abstracts

Smith supplementary material
Translated abstracts

 PDF (54 KB)
54 KB
PDF
Translated abstracts

Smith supplementary material
Translated abstracts

 PDF (69 KB)
69 KB
PDF
Translated abstracts

Smith supplementary material
Translated abstracts

 PDF (141 KB)
141 KB
PDF
Translated abstracts

Smith supplementary material
Translated abstracts

 PDF (110 KB)
110 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 29 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 198 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 11th December 2017 - 16th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.