We reported the development of a theory-driven scale of IC norms, specifically focusing on norms as expressions of cultural constructs. This theoretically derived scale has the same structure across cultures and levels. Previous research suggested that IC is not isomorphic across levels, resulting in ambiguity of how nation-level dimensions such as Hofstede’s are related to individual-level attributes of IC. Therefore, this new scale is an important step in demonstrating that perceptions of norms can be isomorphic across levels and that it can contribute to a better understanding of sociocultural normative processes and effects on behavior vis-à-vis personality-related variables. Normative aspects of how people in general (a) perceive themselves, (b) relate to others, (c) follow their goals, and (d) what guides
found across cultures. Therefore, we provide empirical support for the distinctiveness of Triandis’s (1995) conceptualization. The correlation pattern at an individual level suggests that the scale is consistently related to previous measures, particularly collectivistic scales. At the cultural level, our measure is independent of power distance across these 11 samples, pointing toward discriminant validity of our measures. Our results also indicate that previous nation-level research has focused mainly on self-related attributes. Most important, normative aspects predicted a significant amount of variance in self-reported behavior over and above IC-personality constructs but only for behaviors that have a social component. This provides further evidence that normative aspects are important for predicting specific types of behavior (Fischer, 2006). Recently, attempts have been made to measure culturally important values and norms (e.g., Bierbrauer et al., 1994; Chen et al., 2006; Shteynberg et al., in press; Wan et al., 2007), and our study contributes to this emerging area of cultural research. Future research could use variants of this measure and ask individuals to rate the importance of norms in specific contexts or for specific groups. As our studies and results by Chen et al. indicate, it is important to assess the matching of the target of the norm with the target of the behavior.
The current findings also raise a number of avenues for future research. First, the self norms emerged as significant predictors in the regression and also showed the strongest relationships with previously used nation-level dimensions (Hofstede, GLOBE). A number of authors have argued that self-construals are central for understanding cultural differences (Harb & Smith, 2008; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). It may be possible that the self is the most central dimension of IC and the other three attributes are derivates or correlates of the self. At the same time, it is important to note that the self-norms consistently showed the lowest internal consistencies. Although this problem is not unique to our instrument (see similar problems with other self-construal scales, values, and social axioms; e.g., Leung
& Bond, 2004; Schwartz, 2006; Singelis, 1994), it is remarkable that the scale performed so well in our analyses. It was hard to develop items that measure self-related aspects (rather than other constructs such as communication styles or behavioral tendencies).
A related problem is that our scales require reports of perceived norms. It may be diffi-cult to infer self-related aspects from behavior of others, whereas it is easier to observe behavioral indicators of the other attributes (goal structures, rational behavior, or attitudes).
Hence, the low internal consistencies could be due to the abstract nature of the construct combined with a small pool of items that can be practically derived.
Our measure does not use self-reports (in the sense that individuals report on their own feelings, attitudes, and behavior), but it relies on perceptions of individuals and their will-ingness or ability to reflect on these perceptions and form generalized abstractions across contexts and situations. We took a normative perspective, and as we have shown in Study 2c, there seems to be some agreement concerning these norms. However, this agreement is not uniform or particularly high, leaving much room for individual differences in percep-tions of cultural norms. In fact, by using a single culture in Study 3, we modeled effects of individual differences in perceived norms on self-reported behavior. Our measure therefore captures subjective norms rather than consensual norms. This provides an avenue for inter-esting and challenging further research. For example, researchers interested in measuring perceptions of cultural norms could use the scale at the individual level and evaluate to what extent individuals pay attention to or are influenced by cultural norms. The final study showed that perceptions of norms are more strongly related to socially oriented behaviors
that are tied to particular social norms. Therefore, a normative scale can be used at the individual level to predict normatively regulated behaviors. In contrast, using IC as an indi-vidual difference variable is more likely to relate to behaviors that are not strongly norm governed and are expressions of personal preferences (therefore more akin to an attitudinal or personality measure).
A further issue for future research worth exploring is the perceptual accuracy of per-ceived norms. What happens if individuals are at variance with other people within their group about specific norms? Why would individuals misunderstand (or misreport) norms?
Here, personal value orientations might be useful again. Individuals who are more socially oriented might pay closer attention to normative pressures and therefore are less likely to show discrepancies in norms. Alternatively, more self-oriented individuals may not pay much attention to norms and therefore may not be accurately aware of normative pressures.
Second, we could speculate that such inaccuracies are more important if they relate to injunctive norms. Individuals unaware of injunctive norms would be penalized if an impor-tant group norm is violated. We did not measure the injunctive aspect of norms, and this would be an important issue for future research.
An innovative use of cultural norms would be the application of multilevel models with cultural variables (Fischer et al., 2005), whereby perceived cultural norms are measured in a number of cultures and these perceptions are then used at the nation-level to predict variation of behavior at the individual level. This would also overcome some of the concep-tual problems with unpackaging culture at the individual level (see Fischer, 2009a).
We conceptualized IC norms as bipolar in relation to specific groups across contexts.
Further research could test some of these assumptions. There is first evidence that the bipo-larity is appropriate when considering norms (Fischer, unpublished data a). In a smaller sample of students, the individualistic and collectivistic items were presented separately and yielded bipolar factors and negatively correlated factors (depending on the number of extracted factors). When considering norms, it is not likely that people can satisfy both individualistic and collectivistic tendencies simultaneously.
It is also possible to measure IC separately for various groups (e.g., Harb & Smith, 2008;
Hui, 1988; Matsumoto, Weissman, Preston, Brown, & Kupperbusch, 1997). The present scale can be used with different populations, and respondents could be asked to indicate how important each attribute is for other groups (e.g., work groups, school classes).
Ongoing research with students in four cultures suggests that the scale works well with other in-groups (Fischer, unpublished data b). Future users may also want to specify spe-cific context, similar to scenarios (see Peng, Nisbett, & Wong, 1997). Through this method, it would be possible to capture the normative pressures of a predefined in-group within a particular context. This would allow a clearer examination of the interaction between group norms and situational constraints (also see Chen et al., 2006; Oishi et al., 2004). A potential trade-off is that such scenarios become too culture specific and may not be applicable across a number of cultural contexts. However, the current results reported here show that this new IC scale has potential for future research at both the individual and cultural level.
The investigation of norms in conjunction with personal attributes has been neglected in cross-cultural research, and the scale can be used for these purposes to enable more fine-grained analyses of this important theoretical dimension of cultural variability.
References
Anderson, N. R. & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and valida-tion of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizavalida-tional Behavior, 19, 235-258.
Argyle, M., Henderson, M., Bond, M. H., Iizuka, Y., & Contarello, A. (1986). Cross-cultural variations in rela-tionship rules. International Journal of Psychology, 21, 287-315.
Au, K. Y. (1997). Another consequence of culture-intra-cultural variation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 743-755.
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1207-1220.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and the goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Bierbrauer, G., Meyer, H., & Wolfradt, U. (1994). Measurement of normative and evaluative aspects in indi-vidualistic and collectivistic orientations: the cultural orientation scale (COS). In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C.
Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 189-199). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence and reliability: Implications for data aggrega-tion and analyses. In J. K. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K. K., & Chemonges-Nielson, Z. (2004). Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviours. European Journal of Personality, 18, 177-191.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Schwartz, S. (1992). Explaining choices in procedural and distributive justice across cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 211-225.
Brown, R. D., & Hauenstein, N. A. (2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to the rwg indices.
Organizational Research Methods, 8, 165-184.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chan, D. K. S. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of compositional models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246.
Chan, D. K. S., Gelfand, M. J., Triandis, H. C., & Tzeng, O. (1996). Tightness-looseness revisited: Some pre-liminary analyses in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 1-12.
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineat-ing and testdelineat-ing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 375-409.
Chen, S. X., Hui, N. H. H., Bond, M. H., Sit, A. Y. F., Wong, S., Chow, V. S. Y., et al. (2006). Re-examining personal, social and cultural influence on compliance behaviour in the United States, Poland and Hong Kong. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 223-244.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 160-186.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 151-192).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipients mood, relationship type, and help-ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94-103.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and application. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
Dekker, S. & Fischer, R. (2008). Cultural Differences in Academic Motivation Goals: A meta-analysis across thirteen societies. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 99-110.
Fischer, R. (2006). Congruence and functions of personal and cultural values: Do my values reflect my culture’s values? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1419-1431.
Fischer, R. (2008). Multilevel approaches in organizational settings: Opportunities, challenges and implications for cross-cultural research. In F. J. R. van de Vijver, D. A. van Hemert, & Y. Poortinga (Eds.), Individuals and cultures in multi-level analysis (pp. 173-196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fischer, R., Ferreira, M. C., Assmar, E. M. L., Redford, P., & Harb, C. (2005). Organizational behaviour across cultures: Theoretical and methodological issues for developing multi-level frameworks involving culture.
International Journal for Cross-Cultural Management, 5, 27-48.
Fischer, R. (2009a). Where is culture in cross-cultural research? An outline of a multi-level research process for measuring culture as a shared meaning system. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 9, 25-49.
Fischer, R. (2009b). Testing assumptions about dimensions of individualism-collectivism. Unpublished data, Victoria University of Wellington.
Fischer, R. (2009c). Culture and Reward allocation across four contexts. Unpublished data, Victoria University of Wellington.
Fischer, R., & Fontaine, J. J. R. (in press). Individual-level structural equivalence. In D. Matsumoto & F. van de Vijver (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fontaine, J. J. R., & Fischer, R. (in press). Multilevel structural equivalence. In D. Matsumoto & F. van de Vijver (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures: Distinguishing sampling fluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 345-365.
Gelfand, M. J., Bhawuk, D. P., Nishii, L., & Bechtold, D. (2004). Individualism and collectivism. In R. J.
House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.) Culture, leadership, and organizations:
The GLOBE study of 62 cultures (pp. 437-512). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-loose-ness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1225-1244.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualising and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in mul-tilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601-616.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K. S., & Heyman, S. (1994, July).
Measuring self-construals across cultures. Paper presented at the International Communication Association convention, Sydney, Australia.
Harb, C., & Smith, P. B. (2008). Self-construals across cultures: Beyond independence-interdependence.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 178-197.
Hofmann, D. A. & Jones, L. M. (2004). Some foundational and guiding questions for multi-level construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino, & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizational behaviour and processes (Vol 3, pp. 305-316). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2003). GLOBE, cultures, leadership, and organizations: GLOBE study of 62 societies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 17-36.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.
Kagitçibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitçibasi (Eds.), Hand-book of cross-cultural psychology: Social behavior and applications (Vol. 3, pp. 1-49). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S. C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectiv-ism: Theory, method and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, J. K. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations:
Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In J. K. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multi-cultural perspective.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 53-76.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motiva-tion. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis:
The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
Matsumoto, D., Weissman, M. D., Preston, K., Brown, B. R., & Kupperbusch, C. (1997). Context-specific measurement of individualism-collectivism on the individual level: The individualism-collectivism interper-sonal assessment inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 743-768.
Muthén, B. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 22, 376-398.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oishi, S., Diener, E., Scollon, C. N., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Cross-situational consistency of affective experiences across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 460-472.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism:
Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Wong, N. Y. C. (1997). Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 2, 329-344.
Rohner, R. P. (1984). Toward a conception of culture for cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 111-138.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism-collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications (pp.85-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Basic human values: Theory, measurement and applications. Revue Française de Sociologie, 47(3), 929-968.
Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M. J., & Kim, K. (in press). Peering into the ‘magnum mysterium’ of culture: The explanatory power of descriptive norms. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd ed.). London: Prentice Hall International.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Triandis, H. C. & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128.
Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wan, C., Chiu, C. Y., Tam, K. P., Lee, S. L., Lau, I. Y. M., & Peng, S. (2007). Perceived cultural importance and actual self-importance of values in cultural identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 337-354.
Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applica-tions (pp. 175-188). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ronald Fischer is a senior lecturer in psychology at Victoria University of Wellington and a fellow of the Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, Wellington, New Zealand. He received his DPhil from the University of Sussex, UK. His research interests focus on cross-cultural applied social and organizational psychology as well as cross-cultural research methods. His current research projects focus on cross-cultural differences in response styles; organizational and social justice; and multilevel investigations of values, norms, and behavior.
Maria Cristina Ferreira is currently a professor of social and organizational psychology at Salgado de Oliveira University. She received her PhD in psychology from Getulio Vargas Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Her research interests concern cross-cultural psychology, organizational psychology, and ethnopsychology.
Eveline Assmar is currently a professor of social and organizational psychology at Salgado de Oliveira University. She received her PhD in psychology from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Her research interests concern organizational justice, cross-cultural psychology, and organizational psychology.
Paul Redford is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of the West of England. He received his doctorate from the University of Sussex. His research interests focus on emotion across cultures, organizational innovation and well-being, as well as measurement issues both within and across cultures.
Charles Harb is an assistant professor of psychology at the American University of Beirut. He received his PhD from the University of Sussex. His research interests in social and political psychology include identity, self-construals, and group dynamics in Arab cultures.
Sharon Glazer is an associate professor of psychology at San Jose State University. She received her PhD in industrial and organizational psychology from Central Michigan University. Her research interests include cross-cultural organizational psychology, occupational stress, employee attitudes, and work and human values, particularly as pertaining to person–environment fit.
Bor-Shiuan Cheng is a distinguished professor of psychology in the Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University, where he is department chair and directs the industrial and organizational psychology pro-gram. His research interests include paternalistic leadership, organizational culture, guanxi, and loyalty and commitment in Chinese organizations. He has also been president of the Taiwanese Psychology Association since 2005.
Ding-Yu Jiang is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology, National Chung Cheng University, where he directs the industrial and organizational psychology program. He has a PhD in industrial and organi-zational psychology from National Taiwan University. His research interests include loyalty and commitment, leadership, cross-culture psychology, and management in Chinese organizations.
Corbin C. Wong is a doctoral candidate in the applied organizational psychology program at Hofstra University and completed his undergraduate work at Pennsylvania State University. His primary research areas include job applicant faking on noncognitive measures in selection contexts, perceptions of discrimination, and using 360-feedback to enhance performance. His current research efforts on job applicant faking focuses on the impact of applicants’ perceptions of employment discrimination on faking behavior and methods for preventing job appli-cant dishonesty. During his graduate training, he has worked for several Fortune 100 companies in Silicon Valley and New York City.
Neelam Kumar is a scientist with National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi. She received her PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University. Her research interests include the psychology
Neelam Kumar is a scientist with National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi. She received her PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University. Her research interests include the psychology