Members of high Assertiveness societies value what you do more than who you are. Members think of others as opportunistic.
In communication, members of high Assertiveness cultures are direct and value expressing true thoughts and feelings. In contrast, high Gender Egalitarianism overlaps with low Assertiveness. These societies view assertiveness as socially unacceptable. Members of low Assertiveness cultures emphasise modesty and tenderness. They associate competition with defeat and punishment. They stress equality and social solidarity. Low Assertiveness cultures value people, warm relationships, and cooperation.
Members care more about who you are than what you do. In these societies, integrity, loyalty, and cooperation are stressed. People think of others as inherently worthy of trust. In the workplace, low Assertiveness cultures emphasise seniority and experience.
Merit pay is destructive to harmony. High Doing Orientated societies believe that people have control over their destiny—anyone can succeed if they try hard enough. A Doing Orientation encourages self-assertion to master, direct, and change the natural and social environment to achieve group or individual goals. Societies with a Doing Orientation stress performance and encourage and reward innovation and excellence. These societies have a monochromatic linear and limited view of time and a high sense of urgency.
High Doing Orientated societies believe that schooling and education are critical for success. They value training and development.
A Being Orientation stresses fitting into the world as it is. Members focus on appreciating and understanding the world rather than trying to change, direct, or exploit it. Important values include world peace, unity with nature, and protecting the environment.
Members of Being Orientated societies have a high regard for quality of life and feel being motivated by money is inappropriate. These societies have a polychromic approach to time unending and circular and a low sense of urgency. Members of high Humane Orientation societies believe that others are important. That concern extends to all people and all nature.
High priority is given to altruism, benevolence, and love. Members are urged to be sensitive to all forms of racial discrimination. The need for belonging and affiliation motivates. Members of high Humane Orientation societies are responsible for promoting the well-being of others. Personal and family relationships offer protection; the close social circle receives material, financial and social support and the state does not provide welfare.
The children of high Humane Orientation societies participate in the labour force to help out their families. Children are expected to be obedient and parents closely control them. Members of low Humane Orientation societies believe the self is important. They feel a predominant concern for self-enhancement and a high priority is given to personal pleasure and comfort. Members of low Humane Orientation societies are less sensitive to racial discrimination and are motivated by power and possessions.
Individual members of low Humane Orientated cultures do not support others. Individuals are expected to solve personal problems on their own and the state rather than friends or family provides economic protection when needed. The children of low Humane Orientation societies do not support their parents in their old age. In these societies, children are autonomous and family members independent.
Members of low Humane Orientation societies report more psychological and pathological problems than members of high Humane Orientation societies. Indulgence orientated societies encourage pleasure-seeking. Members pursue fun activities for the sake of personal enjoyment. In contrast, Restraint societies believe that hedonistic pleasure needs to be curbed and regulated by strict social norms. No cultural group is homogenous: there are individual differences in the thoughts and behaviours of members of every cultural group.
The cut-off point was set to identify prospective typical instantiations, and we noted which behaviors were mentioned 10 times or more by at least five participants in one country. This threshold was selected because it enabled us to consider between 5 and 10 instantiations as candidates in each country. This procedure was not intended to definitively identify the typical instantiations, but to identify a range of instantiations that are potentially typical exemplars.
In the concept mapping approach Lord et al. These were then compared between the nations and considered for future study. Finally, we re-read all responses to ensure that we had not missed any meaning or theme which was not flagged up in the frequency analysis conducted with Iramuteq, which was rarely the case. Because hardly any negations e. Indian participants used more negations, which itself is an interesting finding, reflecting the fact that they seemed to focus more on what a value does not mean.
However, we do not consider this to be an issue for the analysis, because such occurrences were still rare and they appear to have been used to express the same points as if the affirmative had been used. The Brazilian instantiations were first identified by a native speaker and then translated by an experienced translator Portuguese native speaker , who ensured that the meaning was correctly translated.
Therefore, these responses are not informative and are not discussed further. The frequencies of these words are nevertheless listed in the Supplementary Materials. All authors contributed to the data analysis and interpretation: The Brazilian data were analyzed and interpreted by the Brazilian authors of this paper and the authors based in the United Kingdom. The Indian data were analyzed and interpreted by the Indian authors of this paper and the authors based in the United Kingdom.
The British data were analyzed and interpreted by the authors based in the United Kingdom. The responses of the Brazilian participants for each value were on average nearly twice as long as the responses from Indian and British participants see Table 2. The number of words mentioned at least 10 times barely differed between the Brazilian and the British sample.
Detailed analyses for each value can be found in the Supplementary Materials. There we list how often the most common instantiations of each country were mentioned and by how many participants. If culture shapes how values are instantiated, people in each country should have a common understanding of values. This approach also allowed us to focus on larger effects, thus reducing the probability of a Type-I error.
TABLE 3. Finally, we looked for similar instantiations in different values across all samples. In the descriptive analyses above and the Supplementary Materials, it is easy to discern a number of instances in which participants in one nation used the same example for a different value than was used in another nation.
To illustrate this diversity with only the relatively frequent examples, we list here four words which were mentioned at least 10 times for different value types. New was relevant for ambition self-enhancement and daring, varied life, creativity, broad-mindedness openness and self-transcendence ; support was relevant for family security conservation as well as loyalty self-transcendence ; and work was relevant for success and ambition self-enhancement and creativity openness.
Some other examples of overlap were found in the Brazilian sample. In particular, typical instantiations of wealth in this sample often focused on a good family life, thereby overlapping wealth with family security. In addition, Brazilian participants understood social power more as social responsibility. This was done because the quality of the responses of the Indian participants was overall low. This finding was surprising because some of the authors of this paper have successfully conducted multiple quantitative studies with student samples from the same departments of the Indian university with overall reliable results.
This suggests that the English proficiency of most students might have been adequate for quantitative research, but not for qualitative research. Of importance, these instantiations were produced spontaneously as examples of the values. If they are valid examples of the values, then these spontaneously produced exemplars should be correctly regarded as value instantiations; that is, when presented with an exemplar, people should be able to identify the value that elicited it.
More importantly, we wanted to establish whether the examples would be seen as valid even in a country in which they had not been frequently generated.
Should this be the case, it would indicate that the nations differ primarily with respect to the nature of the spontaneously produced examples, but not with respect to whether the examples are regarded as valid and therefore defining of the value. In other words, such a finding would show that the concrete examples of values that spontaneously come to mind in the mental representations differ between countries, but that the abstract meaning of the values is similar enough that even examples that do not spontaneously come to mind are seen as valid instances of a given value.
The aim of Study 2 was therefore to test whether instantiations can be reliably matched to the values from which they were derived. They were not compensated. They received course credits in exchange for their participation. Prior to data analysis, 42 non-British participants were excluded, to be consistent with the homogeneous Brazilian sample. One-hundred thirty-eight instantiations were chosen to be matched to values, six for each of the 23 values. The instantiations were chosen mainly based on the results of Study 1, but also for exploratory purposes.
The instantiations used were a priori categorized as either typical i. The latter group were instantiations that we generated for exploratory purposes, based on their perceived relevance to the present research and also based on previous studies.
They were used when there were fewer than six instantiations that seemed suitable in the first three categories. Thus, we expected that this atypical example would be recognized as an instantiation of equality by British participants and also, presumably, by Brazilian participants. The instantiations selected from Study 1 were chosen based on the frequency with which they were mentioned in each country, while balancing the instantiations that were mentioned in both countries with those mentioned in only one country but not the other.
The fourth instantiation was frequently mentioned by participants in both countries, and the sixth instantiation was added for exploratory purposes. A list of all in the United Kingdom instantiations can be found in the Supplementary Table S70, including the values they were derived from and whether they were mentioned by participants in both countries, just one country, or were added by us.
Within the six instantiations of one value, both the order and the alternatives were kept constant. The five alternative values were kept constant across both countries. All participants then completed further scales, unrelated to the present study. On average, each instantiation was matched with values by 71 Brazilian and 41 British respondents.
Brazilian participants completed a paper version of the survey in classroom settings of 10 to 40 people. British participants completed the survey online. To reduce fatigue, each participant completed only one-sixth of the items, with each participant responding to one instantiation per value. To perform the principal analyses, we first counted how often each value was identified as being promoted by an instantiation, separately for each country see Supplementary Table S This is a conservative approach, which partly takes the research design multiple choice and the influence of the response alternatives into account.
Overall, in both countries, most instantiations were correctly matched with the value from which they were derived see Supplementary Table S Of the in the United Kingdom instantiations, 94 were correctly matched by the Brazilian participants and by the British participants. This difference 94 vs. For another 12 instantiations, no value was chosen significantly more often than the second most frequent value in both countries.
In the Brazilian sample, the number of participants who chose protecting the environment differed significantly from the number of participants who chose the second-most frequently chosen value, helpfulness 54 vs.
Overall, Brazilian participants correctly matched five out of the six instantiations for protecting the environment, and British participants correctly matched all six instantiations to protecting the environment.
As can be seen in Table 4 , participants from both countries were approximately equally likely to match instantiations that had been mentioned in both countries columns 3 and 8 , mentioned more frequently in Brazil, and also the exploratory instantiations. Brazilian participants had somewhat more difficulty in matching British instantiations, compared to their British counterparts 34 vs. TABLE 4. Frequencies of correctly matched instantiations for all values combined and depending on the origin of the instantiation.
In a final step, we computed how often differences occurred based on the taxonomy proposed in Study 1, while taking the unequal sample sizes into account. We compared all values that were mentioned by at least half the participants in one country with the percentage of participants choosing the same value in the other country.
Fifty percent was chosen as a cut-off value because it allowed us to focus on larger effects while reducing the probability of a Type-I error. The aim of this research was to explore whether value instantiations vary across countries, despite there being similarities in values at an abstract level Fischer and Schwartz, We first discuss the implications and limitations of Study 1, before turning to Study 2.
In Study 1, we explored concrete examples i. This design enabled us to test the hypothesis that on a concrete level values differ between countries. However, only a few differences were found. There was large individual variability in the responses within countries, which made it difficult to detect differences between countries. People usually do not think about their values or discuss them with others in order to arrive at a shared understanding of the meaning of values. If, for example, students were to discuss whether freedom is important, they would presumably develop a more shared understanding of this value.
This variation in responses within and between countries has further implications relating to possible misunderstandings both within and perhaps especially between countries. If a Brazilian, an Indian, and a British person were to talk about the importance of protecting the environment, they might easily talk past each other, because it is quite likely that they would have somewhat different understandings of it.
For example, the Briton might conceive of protecting the environment as entailing the reduction of carbon emissions, whereas the Brazilian and Indian individuals might be thinking of putting rubbish into a bin. This implication is consistent with research in law and political sciences. One conclusion from Study 1 is therefore that debate and discussion would be more constructive, and behavioral change interventions more effective if they linked the abstract values being considered to more concrete exemplars.
Linking actions to abstract values carries a prescriptive, motivational impetus, which can predict behavior independently of attitudes, norms, and other constructs often used to predict behavior Schwartz and Tessler, ; Maio and Olson, By making the connections of values to an action explicit, people can reason through their relevant attitudes and intentions to achieve better fit with their values. Such an approach could be used to support intervention programs, which have to deal with the fact that several behaviors are closely linked to values.
For example, protecting the environment is usually considered to be an important value Schwartz and Bardi, , but can be linked to a variety of behaviors. Nonetheless, some of these behaviors are more damaging to the environment than others. For example, it may be more beneficial to alert participants to the fact that avoiding short distance flights or installing good heat insulation are effective ways of protecting the environment, rather than simply reminding people that environmental protection is important.
Most people already agree that this value is important, and they might imagine that engaging in less impactful behaviors e. Highlighting important behaviors about the value should help to change their perceived typicality with respect to the value and the motivational impetus attached to these actions.
This finding is in line with our casual observation of the regions in Brazil and India from where the data were collected: the streets and roadside ditches in Brazil were much cleaner than those in India. Other meaningful differences across countries were related to contextual differences. This refers to a social system that does not exist in Brazil and the United Kingdom, although prejudice based on social class is somewhat similar. These examples show that the examples provided by participants depended to some degree on the social and physical environment in which they live.
Another aim of Study 1 was to identify instantiations that are more frequent in one country than another, to select these for further confirmatory studies. For example, the presence of the same examples in relation to different values is a complicating factor.
There were many instances of the same context being referenced for different values. In some instances, the same example was used for motivationally similar values, but countries varied with respect to which value generated the example e. This pattern suggests that small shifts in understanding the meaning of the values may affect which examples are given.
Our approach can be generalized to other psychological constructs, such as goals Grouzet et al. The importance of instantiations is especially relevant to measures that require participants to respond to single-word items, such as the markers of the Big-5 traits Goldberg, ; Saucier, because they are not embedded in a context or defined, thus increasing the likelihood that the adjectives are differently instantiated.
However, participants across different groups might instantiate these adjectives differently. Future research could therefore investigate whether differences in how these adjectives are instantiated can account for potential failures to replicate the five-factor model of personality in some countries McCrae et al.
Further, as outlined above for values, knowing the trait instantiations might help to predict the trait-behavior link. For instance, prior research has identified Blacks and women as two groups that are often used to instantiate the value of lack of equality in the United Kingdom Maio et al. However, these groups were mentioned in Brazil, but not in the United Kingdom. Conversational norms apply to the information that participants might choose to identify, and one important norm is not offering information already mutually understood one of the Gricean maxims; Grice, This might sometimes cause people to neglect to report common instantiations that are not salient.
That is, treating students or job applicants equally is something that would directly affect the British participants, whereas equal treatment of Black people does not bearing in mind that most of the British participants were Caucasian.
Although these observations are speculative, they show that open-ended measures of concept mapping, as used here and in past research, are likely to be unreliable as sole measures of the typicality of an exemplar.
Another issue is that although some of the observed differences in instantiations are clearly explicable in terms of contextual factors, others are more difficult to explain. Water conservation is an aspect of daily life in the region where this research was conducted Karnataka , making it highly relevant to the residents.
However, they did not spontaneously think of this behavior in relation to environmental protection. This may be a case where an instantiation is taken for granted, making it less salient to respondents Gricean maxims; Grice, Alternatively, it may be the case that water conservation is seen as a basic necessity rather than a way to protect the environment.
As a result, Indian participants may have perceived water shortage as a personal challenge rather than a challenge to the environment. A further limitation pertains to the samples used. Because most participants were students in specific regions of each nation, generalizing to the population of each country should be done with caution cf.
Hanel and Vione, For example, Brazilians mentioned passing entrance exams for prestigious jobs as an instantiation. However, it is less likely that people who are close to retirement would also regard this as an instantiation for success.
Further, although the instantiations are in general not in line with typical gender stereotypes, similar limitations may pertain to the large proportion of female participants in all samples. Finally, the answers in the Indian data were more heterogeneous i. Most of the Indian participants did not have English as a first language, although English was the language of instruction both in school and at university.
As a result, English proficiency varied substantially between participants. Another possible explanation for the difficulties we had in parsing the Indian responses is that Indian participants used a line of thought that was too unique for us to follow.
This is sometimes a problem in anthropological research Barley, Our 'What's on your mind? This can help if: you want to embrace cultural differences you want to learn how to understand cultural differences you want to learn how to talk to people from different backgrounds.
Why is cultural awareness important? Ways to build cultural understanding and awareness It can be very easy to stick with what you know, rather than try to meet people who are different from you. Do your own research Learning about different cultures can be a great way to develop an understanding of cultural diversity.
Talk to someone from a different cultural background Try and get to know someone from a different cultural background better. Think beyond stereotypes One of the biggest difficulties to overcome in understanding cultural differences is making judgements based on one opinion.
Everyone is unique The main thing to remember is that everyone, no matter what their cultural background, has their own unique opinions, habits and ways of life. What can I do now? Learn how you can stand up to racism and support people from different cultural backgrounds. Check out some of our ways to celebrate Harmony Day. Work on your self-awareness. Explore other topics It's not always easy to find the right place to start.