Dissertation
Work-Related Acculturation:
Change in Individual Work-Related Cultural Values Following Immigration
Vas Taras
1
Table of Contents
Statement of Purpose and Relevance .................................................................................. 4
Culture and Acculturation in Literature .............................................................................. 8
Culture: A Static View .................................................................................................... 8
Acculturation: Change in Culture ................................................................................. 13
Definition and Measurement of Acculturation ............................................................. 15
Measuring Change in Studies on Acculturation ........................................................... 19
Implications of Culture in the Workplace ......................................................................... 21
Theoretical Models of Acculturation ................................................................................ 44
Unidimensional Models of Acculturation ..................................................................... 45
Multidimensional Models of Acculturation .................................................................. 48
Limitations of the Acculturation Models ...................................................................... 53
Theorized Moderators of Acculturation........................................................................ 55
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 57
Research Design................................................................................................................ 61
Measure of Time ........................................................................................................... 88
Measures of Individual Work-Related Cultural Values................................................ 89
Acculturation Index ...................................................................................................... 91
Sample............................................................................................................................... 92
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 95
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 96
Expatriate vs. Immigrant Acculturation ........................................................................ 97
Appendix 1. List of Acculturation Measurement Instruments........................................ 116
2
Appendix 2. List of Publications Describing Original Instruments for Measuring Cultural
Values ............................................................................................................................. 123
Appendix 3. Questionnaire for Detecting Measures of Work-Related Cultural Values. 133
Appendix 5. Expected Sample Size ................................................................................ 143
Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 144
3
Statement of Purpose and Relevance
Recent decades were signified by unprecedented cross-national migration around
the world. Traditionally, the United States, Canada, and Australia have been welcoming
the largest numbers of newcomers. However, with the expansion of the European Union,
most of the Western European countries have also been experiencing extensive waves of
immigration.
The US immigrant population grew by 11.3 million during the 1990’s - faster than
at any other time in the country’s history (Camarota & McArdle, 2003). The annual
migration flow in Europe is estimated at about half a million people (Fassmann & Münz,
2002) and the number is growing due to the expansion of the EU. Immigration to
Australia reached its 15 year high at 123,450 in 2005 (StatAustralia, 2006). Based on the
figures from the Annual Report on Immigration prepared by the Canadian Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Canada has been welcoming almost a quarter million
immigrants annually for the last 20 years (CIC, 2006) and is planning to further increase
the number of immigrants. According to the former Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre
Pettigrew, Canada needs immigrants to foot pensions of the baby-boomers and, therefore,
Canada’s population must rise to 40 million within “the next few years” (Curry, 2005, p.
A7). Even though the absolute number of immigrants in Canada may not be as high as in
some other countries, it is huge compared to the country’s relatively small population
size. The portion of Canada’s foreign-born citizens has been fluctuating around 20
percent for the last hundred years with an increasing trend in the last decade. The data
reported above does not include hundreds of thousands expatriates, international students,
and illegal immigrants.
4
Obviously, foreigners are an immense part of the labor force in industrialized
countries. It is not unusual to see locals in the minority in many organizations. Every day
millions of people born outside countries of their current residence come to their offices,
workshops, construction sites, or classrooms. They interact with locals and with each
other. They manage and are managed. Cultural diversity is no longer an option for the
workplace, but a core characteristic of the contemporary organization.
Cultural diversity is one of the greatest assets of modern businesses, but it is also
one of greatest challenges for management. It has been found that international teams
tend to outperform homogeneous ones, especially on non-routine tasks requiring
creativity (Davison, 1994). However, cultural diversity is also associated with
stereotyping, differences in languages, traditions, and ways of doing business, differences
in perceptions of justice, and preferences for conflict resolution styles (Adler, 2002; Cox,
1993). If not managed properly, diversity can lead to communication difficulties,
misunderstandings and conflicts.
Based on the results of Hofstede’s (1980) IBM study and several other large-scale
cross-cultural comparison projects (e.g., House et al., 2004; Schwartz, 1992;
Trompenaars, 1993), national cultures have been described and ranked along a number of
dimensions. The models of cultures and national cultural indices have been extensively
used in applied research. As a very brief overview, they have been applied on topics as
diverse as negotiation behavior (Graham, Mintu, & Rodgers, 1994), reward allocation (K.
I. Kim, Park, & Suzuki, 1990), conflict management (Swierczek & Onishi, 2003), ethical
perception (Cohen, Pant, & Sharp, 1995; MacArthur, 1996), entrepreneurial potential and
innovativeness (Mueller & Thomas, 2001), expectation of service quality (Furrer &
5
Sudharshan, 2001), subjective well-being (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995), acceptance
of new products (Yeniyurt & Townsend, 2003), whistle blowing (Sims & Keenan, 1999)
and many other.
The research on cross-cultural management has vastly advanced our knowledge in
the field. How cultures differ across countries and what management practices are more
effective in different parts of the world are issues that are becoming better understood.
We know that HR management techniques that work well in Canada may not, and
probably will not, be optimal, for example, in China because Chinese employees are
likely to possess different work-related cultural values than those of Canadians.
On the other hand, very little is known about how these cultural values change as
people are exposed to a foreign culture. Are cultural values of immigrants closer to those
typical for their home or host countries? Should immigrant employees who have lived in
Canada for some time still be treated as internationals or should they be expected to have
work-related values similar to those of Canadians? What are the factors that speed up or
slow down the acculturation process? Can inferences about change in cultural values be
made based on such observable acculturation indicators as changes in language, clothing
style, food and music preferences?
The purpose of this study is to research the nature and patterns of the change in
personal work-related cultural values in response to an exposure to a foreign cultural
environment. The uniqueness of the study is that it will be the first one to explicitly focus
on exploring acculturation of cultural work-related values. About four hundred empirical
papers on acculturation were found during the literature review process. Virtually all of
the studies examined acculturation patterns at the superficial level of cultural artifacts and
6
symbols through such measures as preferences for language, music, food, media, and
clothing style. While artifacts are important attributes of culture, they are only remotely
related to the workplace. From the management perspective, cultural values and beliefs
are much more important as they govern individual behavior.
A special focus of the study will be on the relationship between acculturation at
the level of symbols and artifacts with acculturation of cultural core values. Could
reliable assumptions be made about one’s value acculturation, which is not directly
observable, based on such obvious elements of acculturation as changes in language
preferences and proficiency, clothing style, choice of music, media, and ethnic
background of one’s friends? In other words, if an immigrant employee has learned the
language of the host society, knows and enjoys local traditions and customs, likes local
food and dresses like the locals, does it also mean that the person’s cultural values have
changed too and are now similar to those of the locals?
In this research project, I place the emphasis on the applicability of the results for
the organizational settings. An effort will be made to select and base my analysis on those
cultural values that could be directly linked to the workplace behavior. Similarly, only
those overt indicators of acculturation will be measured that can be easily observed
through a usual interaction process with an individual in the workplace.
This study will be a segue from the well-established body of the literature on the
static cross-cultural differences to a new research direction focusing on the changes in
personal work-related cultural values. Further research in the area may involve
exploration of the differences in acculturation patterns between temporary (expatriates)
7
and permanent (immigrants) migrants, re-acculturation, effects of characteristics of
cultural environments (countries and organizations) on acculturation, and more.
Culture and Acculturation in Literature
Culture: A Static View
Everyone who has been abroad knows that people in different countries speak
different languages, wear different clothing, listen to different music, eat different foods,
and have different traditions. Anthropologists have studied these distinct characteristics
of societies for centuries and referred to them as “cultures”. However, a culture is more
than just symbolic attributes such as a language, clothing, and traditions. At the core
level, people from different cultures have different values and beliefs that govern their
behavior.
From the management perspective, cultural diversity at the value level is much
more interesting. Because of the differences in cultural values, people from different
countries may vary in terms of their work and leadership styles (Hui, 1990), perceptions
of authority (Tyler, Lind, & Huo, 2000), organizational commitment (Wasti, 2003), jobfamily balance preferences (Yang, 1996), and willingness to take risk and responsibility
(Weber & Hsee, 1998). If managed properly, cultural diversity can be advantageous for
international groups, but if ignored it can severely hinder group effectiveness.
In the fields of management and psychology, Hofstede’s (1980) model of crosscultural differences has been the most popular. Although attempts to quantify cultural
values can be traced further back in time (e.g., Budner, 1962; R. Christie, 1968; England,
1967; Kuhn & McPartland, 1954; Martin & Westie, 1959; Rokeach, 1973), Hofstede’s
8
study was the first one to be conducted based on a large international sample and to
employ relatively advanced, for its time, research designs and statistical analysis tools.
The product of this work was a concise set of quantitative indices for describing and
ranking cultural values along several dimensions providing a simple and comprehensible
way for quantifying and comparing cultural values. Hofstede’s cross-cultural model is
expressed in five dimensions.
Power Distance is the extent to which the less powerful persons in a society
accept inequality in power and consider it as normal (Hofstede, 1986: 307). Alternatively,
it is the extent to which subordinates are reluctant to express disagreement with their
supervisors and do not expect their supervisors to consult with them in the decision
making process (Hofstede, 1980, 2001b).
Individualism is the degree to which people in a country prefer to act as
individuals rather than as members of groups (Hofstede, 1994: 6). Individualist cultures
assume that any person looks primarily after his/her own interest and the interest of
his/her immediate family (husband, wife, and children). Collectivist cultures assume that
any person through birth and possible later events belongs to one or more tight “ingroups,” from which he/she cannot detach him/herself. The ingroup (whether extended
family, clan, or organization) protects the interest of its members, but in turn expects their
permanent loyalty (Hofstede, 1986:307).
Masculinity is the degree to which such masculine values as advancement,
earnings, training, up-to-dateness and such feminine values as friendly atmosphere,
position security, physical conditions, [and] cooperation are valued (Hofstede, 2001:281);
the degree to which values like assertiveness, performance, success and competition […]
9
prevail over values like the quality of life, maintaining warm personal relationships,
service, care for the weak, and solidarity (Hofstede, 1994:6).
Uncertainty Avoidance defines the extent to which people are made nervous by
situations which they perceive as unstructured, unclear, or unpredictable. These are
situations that they try to avoid by maintaining strict codes of behavior and a belief in
absolute truth (Hofstede, 1986:308). Uncertainty avoidance should not be confused with
risk-avoidance (Hofstede 2001:145). It does not describe one’s willingness to take or
avoid risk, but rather is associated with preferences for clear rules and guidance
(Hofstede, 2001:149).
Confucian Dynamism, (a.k.a., Long vs. Short Term Orientation; a.k.a. Future
versus Past Orientation; (compare Hofstede, 1980, 2001b), is the least popular cultural
dimension and the most misunderstood. The exact definition of the construct is very
ambiguous and has varied among Hofstede’s own writings. The most common perception
is that the dimension refers to the degree to which people prefer quick results despite
possible negative consequences in the future. Albeit this would be a useful trait reflecting
impulsiveness or temporal discounting, Hofstede has never defined the dimension this
way. Rather, Confucian Dynamism somewhat reflects a progressive versus conservative
duality. Its positive pole indicates a dynamic, future-oriented mentality, whereas its
negative pole suggests a more static, tradition-oriented mindset (Hofstede & Bond, 1988:
16). Accordingly, the original survey instrument items refer to the perceived importance
of personal steadiness, stability, thrift, perseverance, and respect for tradition. As can be
seen, Confucian Dynamism is only tangentially connected to a preference for quick gains
in spite of possible future losses.
10
Following Hofstede’s IBM study, several alternative models and cultural value
survey instruments have gained a vast recognition and popularity, for example those
offered by Schwartz (1992), Trompenaars (1993), Maznevski and DiStephano (1995),
and the GLOBE team (House et al., 2004). Although the factor structures differ from
model to model, there seem to be a set of core dimension that remain virtually unchanged
and can be traced back to the early models, such as Hofstede’s (1980). For example, in
the model developed by Schwartz (1994), Self-Direction and Achievement are similar to
Hofstede’s Individualism and Masculinity respectively. The Cultural Perspective
Questionnaire (Maznevski & DiStefano, 1995) contains a construct called Relationships
Among People that includes subdimensions of collectivism, individualism and
hierarchical relations that are similar to Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism and power
distance. The GLOBE model (House et al., 2004), is a direct replication of Hofstede’s
work with several new dimensions added to it.
However, a number of models contain unique dimensions, such as UniversalParticular or Affective-Neutral in Trompenaar’s (1993) model, Hedonism and
Benevolence in Schwartz’s (1994) model, Determinism and Space Perception in the
model offered by Maznevski and DiStephano (1995), to cite a few. Some instruments
have a completely unique factor structure. For example, the set of values measured by the
World Value Survey (Inglehart, Basanez, & Moreno, 2004) is entirely different from the
sets of work-related cultural values that prevail in the management literature. Several
models further refined their factor structures by using subdimensions. For example, the
individualism-collectivism measures offered by Hui and his colleagues (Hui, 1988; Hui
& Triandis, 1986; Hui & Yee, 1994) contain items aligned along several subdimensions
11
such as spouse, mother, sibling, relative, friend, co-worker, neighbor, acquaintance,
stranger, foreigner.
In most of the models, cultural constructs are unidimensional and bi-polar. For
example, Hofstede measured attitudes to ambiguity by a single bi-polar dimension
Uncertainty Avoidance, with high and low Uncertainty Avoidance at the extremes.
Similarly, the construct describing relationships to a group was represented by a single
dimension with Individualism and Collectivism as its poles. However, several models
were found to contain multidimensional cultural constructs. For example, in some models
the construct of Individualism has been represented by multiple dimensions such as
Vertical and Horizontal Individualism and Collectivism (Singelis et al., 1995), or
Allocentrism and Idiocentrism (Triandis, 1994). Similarly, in the model offered by
Maznevski and DiStephano (1995) Relationship to Nature is measured along three
dimensions: Mastery, Subjugation, and Harmony.
It appears that there has been some dissatisfaction with the “big name” cultural
models. Despite the fact that they have been developed based on huge samples and have
been well-validated by subsequent research, many authors choose to alter the sets of
dimensions from the existing models of culture or even design their own questionnaires.
The review of the literature revealed that there have been at least 63 attempts to develop
alternative tools for measuring cultures (Appendix 2). Although the evidence is largely
speculative, it appears that many scholars find that the sets of the theoretical dimensions
in the well-known cultural models miss some important dimensions and contain some
dimensions that are irrelevant for applied business research.
12
The literature review suggests that such cultural constructs as Confucian Work
Dynamism (Hofstede, 2001), Hedonism, Security, and Benevolence (Schwartz, 1994),
and Relation to Nature (Maznevski, DiStephano, 1995) have been the least popular and
their corresponding items have been frequently dropped from the questionnaires. On the
other hand, some cultural dimensions have been frequently retained in the models, but
attempts were made to alter the set of their corresponding items. For example,
individualism-collectivism and masculinity-femininity have been some of the most
popular dimensions. However, authors seemed to be dissatisfied with the original
instruments to measure the constructs and, depending on their research questions, tried to
differentiate between such aspects of individualism as preferences for teamwork,
perceived importance of individual interests, relationships with family members and
friends, and such aspect of the masculinity constructs as achievement orientation,
materialism, and gender egalitarism. Other refinements have occurred in the realm of
differentiation between values and practice (should be vs. is) and individual and societal
cultural values (for me vs. in this society).
Acculturation: Change in Culture
Concept of acculturation has been in the focus of scientists and policy makers for
a long time. Even thousands of years ago, early written codes of law, such as the Old
Testament Law of Moses or the Babylonian Law of Hammurabi, acted to stabilize
cultural practices and reduce acculturative changes. Probably the first academic account
of acculturation appears in Plato's Laws, written in the 4th century BC, in which he
argued that humans have a tendency to imitate strangers and a tendency to like travel,
13
both of which introduce new cultural practices. Plato saw this as a destabilizing factor for
society and advocated that acculturation should be minimized to the degree possible
through limitations on travel of people under a certain age (Wikipedia, 2006).
The term “acculturation” has been first used as early as 1880 in the first annual
report of the US Bureau of American Ethnography to describe the cultural challenges
faces by Native Americans as a result of expansion of European settlements in North
America. In this report, John W. Powell, who is credited with coining the term, defined
acculturation as the psychological changes induced by cross-cultural imitation.
Traditionally, acculturation has been in the domain of anthropology. However, an
explosion of interest to cross-cultural issues has been witnessed in other fields in recent
decades. The majority of studies on acculturation were produced in the areas of
marketing, psychology, sociology, health care, management, and economics.
In marketing, acculturation has been studied in relation to consumer behavior and
decision making (Dato-on, 2000; Quester, Karunaratna, & Chong, 2001), sensitivity to
prices (Suri & Manchanda, 2001), perceptions of advertisement (Khairullah &
Khairullah, 1999b; Ueltschy & Krampf, 1997) and product attributes (Faber, O'Guinn, &
McCarty, 1987), price bargaining behavior (Nyer & Gopinath, 2001), and leisure time
spending preferences (Carr & Williams, 1993; Manrai & Manrai, 1995). In the field of
psychology, acculturation has been studied in relation to acculturative stress (Berry &
Annis, 1974; Sam & Berry, 1995), achieving style (Gomez & Fassinger, 1994),
psychological counseling (Atkinson & Matsushita, 1991; Gim, Atkinson, & Whiteley,
1990; Kunkel, 1990), and person-organization fit (McMillan & Lopez, 2001). In health
care literature, acculturation has been discussed in relation to AIDS knowledge (Miller,
14
Guarnaccia, & Fasina, 2002), blood pressure (Dallo & James, 2000), tobacco use
(Shelley et al., 2004), health beliefs (Rodriguez-Reimann et al., 2004), breast screening
rates (O'Malley et al., 1999), and mental health (Sands & Berry, 1993). In economics and
public policy, acculturation has been mainly explored in relation to economic
assimilation, for example wage and annual income assimilation (Husted et al., 2001;
Kossoudji, 1989; Mason, 2004), and welfare participation (Hansen & Lofstrom, 2003).
Despite a huge interest to cross-cultural issues that followed Hofstede’s (1980)
IBM study, only a very few studies on acculturation have been conducted in the field of
human resource management and organizational behavior. Typically, management
scholars studied acculturation in relation to expatriation. However, in this case
acculturation has been considered not as a change in cultural values as a result of
exposure to a foreign environment, but as acclimatization and adjustment to new cultures
(e.g., Atiyyah, 1996a; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985a; Selvarajah & Russell, 1998a). Also,
several studies have been conducted on organizational acculturation following mergers
and acquisitions (Elsass & Veiga, 1994; Larsson & Lubatkin, 2001; McEntire & Bentley,
1996; Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988).
Definition and Measurement of Acculturation
How has acculturation been defined in the literature and how has it been
measured? One of the most popular definitions states that “acculturation comprehends
those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come
into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original culture
patterns of either or both groups” (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936, p. 149).
15
What are the original culture patterns? The answer for this question depends on
the depth of the analysis of cultures. At the surface, a culture is represented by language,
clothing, food, art, rituals and traditions. At the core level, culture is represented by
cultural values that determine individual behavior (Hofstede, 2001a). Because cultural
artifacts are directly observable and cultural values cannot be observed directly, but only
through an evaluation of behavior some refer to these are “explicit” and “implicit”
(Trompenaars, 1993) or “subjective” and “objective” (Triandis, 1972) levels of cultures.
Other terminology that has been used to differentiate between the symbolic and value
levels of culture could be “visible” vs. “invisible”, “overt” vs. “covert”, “external” vs.
“internal”, or “obvious” vs. “hidden”, and “artifact” vs. “value” levels.
Naturally, cultural values are of more interest than artifacts and symbols to
management and psychology scholars. From the cultural value paradigm, acculturation
should be defined as the difference in cultural values prior to and after immigration.
Unfortunately, a review of more than three hundred studies on acculturation published
since 1970 in the most known journals in the fields of business, psychology, sociology,
and public policy revealed that the change in original culture patterns (acculturation) has
been interpreted and studied almost exclusively at the external level of artifacts and
symbols.
Descriptions of forty-nine acculturation measurement instruments have been
found in the literature (Appendix 1). A review of items included in the instruments
revealed that measures of acculturation have been limited to changes in preferences for
language (e.g., Chavez, 2004), ethnic foods (e.g., Jamal, 1996), media (e.g., Triandis et
al., 1982), movies (e.g., W. N. Lee, 1993), jokes (e.g., Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000),
16
music (W. N. Lee, 1993), choice of friends (e.g., Garrett & Pichette, 2000),
understanding and following ethnic customs and traditions (e.g., Garrett & Pichette,
2000), and participation in ethnic community center activities (e.g., W. N. Lee & Tse,
1994). Some other indirect measures of acculturation included length of residence in the
foreign country (Gfroerer & Tan, 2003; Valencia, 1985), number of intercultural contacts
(Kwak & Berry, 2001), frequency of traveling back to home country (W. N. Lee & Ro
Um, 1992), responsibilities in the family (Kwak & Berry, 2001), and ethnic self-identity
(W. N. Lee & Tse, 1994; Shih & Brown, 2000). In other words, acculturation has been
evaluated by the measures of the secondary indicators of the change in cultural values.
None of these variables measure the core values that govern our behavior and determine
our preferences for clothing style, media, food and other artifacts.
It should be noted that names of some instruments included the word “value”, e.g.
the Asian Values Scale (B. S. K. Kim, Atkinson, & Yang, 1999), the Value Acculturation
Scale (Szapocznik et al., 1978), or the European American Values Scale for Asian
Americans (Wolfe et al., 2001). This may create an impression that the instruments
actually measure acculturation as a change in cultural values. A closer inspection of items
included in these questionnaires showed that their behavioral and value components were
limited to such measures as cultural identity, participation in daily cultural activities,
attitudes towards family roles, or expression of emotions. Although these are measures of
culture-related behaviors and values, their relevance to the workplace is very remote.
Nevertheless, albeit understudied, the concept of acculturation at the cultural
value level has been recognized and discussed in the literature. Several scholars
differentiated between acculturation at the symbolic and value levels. They usually
17
referred to them as behavioral and psychological acculturation (Berry, 1998; Berry, Kim,
& Boski, 1987; Birman, 1994; Olmedo, 1979; Tropp et al., 1999). Under this framework,
behavioral acculturation relates to cultural learning and the adoption of the directly
observable behaviors of the dominant culture and the ability to “fit in”. On the other
hand, psychological acculturation is defined as the degree of agreement with the norms,
values, ideologies, beliefs, and attitudes prevailing in the dominant culture.
Unfortunately, the review of the studies that discussed this multi-level concept of
acculturation, as well and the analysis of the items included in instruments that were
designed to measure acculturation at the behavioral and psychological levels, revealed
that the level-identifying terms behavior and psychological acculturation have been used
in a somewhat misleading way. Specifically, the measures of behavioral acculturation
were found to deal with cultural elements that are not behaviors per se, such as language
preferences and skills, preferences for clothing style, ethnic foods, music and other
elements, or what I previously labeled as “symbolic” culture. On the other hand, the
measures of psychological acculturation were found to be typically limited to different
forms of cultural identity and feelings towards heritage and host cultures. Unfortunately,
the instruments did not include any direct measures of cultural values relevant for the
workplace.
Only several studies have been found to attempt to explore acculturation at the
level of cultural values and beliefs. McCrae et. al. (1998) measured acculturation as a
change in openness and cheerfulness constructs, which are presumably culture-bound.
Similarly, Neto (1995) used such measures as satisfaction with life in general and
satisfaction with life related to religion to assess the change in values and attitudes of
18
immigrants. Marino, Stuart, and Mina (2000) and Ramos-Sanchez (2001) measured
change in family values and gender role perceptions as indicators of acculturation.
Finally, Murphy and Anderson (2003) used the Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1973),
a cultural value instrument that used to be popular in the management literature, to
measure acculturation as a change in happiness, forgiving, and locus of control. As can
be seen, although these studies were an important step forward in acculturation research,
the applicability of their results in organizational settings was very limited.
Measuring Change in Studies on Acculturation
Despite the fact that acculturation has been seen as a dynamic process of change,
there has been virtually no study that measured acculturative change per se. Although a
longitudinal research design would seem necessary to assess acculturation, the literature
review showed that virtually all of the acculturation studies were based on measurements
conducted at a single point in time. In other words, rather than measuring change in
culture, most of the studies were actually assessing cultural differences. Typically, the
studies contained no measure of time and immigrants were simply compared to the locals
in terms of their culture-related habits and preferences. Accordingly, the degree of
acculturation was operationalized as a degree of consistency of immigrants’ cultural
norms and behaviors to those of the locals.
In some studies, cultural values typical to the immigrants’ country of origin were
used for control purposes to better understand the direction of acculturation. In these
cases, cultural values of immigrants were compared against those of the people in their
former home country and to those of people in their host country. Other control groups
19
could be used. For example, Selmer (Selmer & De Leon, 1996) tested acculturation of
Singaporean managers in Swedish subsidiaries by comparing their values to those of
Swedish expatriates and Singaporean managers (control group) who did not work for
Swedish companies. Presumably, the latter ones were not exposed to the foreign
(Swedish) culture and thus could be used as a control group.
Alternatively, some scholars used the deviance from norms and behaviors of the
heritage culture as a measure of the degree of acculturation. In this case, the heritage
culture was the only check-point and no comparison to the dominant group of the host
society was made. For example, Tan (2002) studied acculturation of Chinese immigrants
by comparing their values to those of the Mainland Chinese. The difference was
interpreted as assimilation of the Chinese immigrants to the new societal norms of their
current country’s residence away from their native Chinese culture. Similarly, Landrine
and Klonoff (1994; 1995; 1996) used the African American Acculturation Scale to
assess how much African Americans were familiar with and follow customs and
traditions that were unique to African American subculture. Lack of familiarity and
failure to practice the customs and traditions of the African American culture was
interpreted as acculturation to the mainstream Anglo-Saxon culture. In both examples, no
comparisons against the values and practices of the host/dominant society were made.
Instead, it was assumed that deviation from the culture of origin meant absorption of the
values of the new host society.
The studies that attempted to explicitly measure change usually used the length of
residence in the host country or the immigrant generation to capture the cultural value
change over time. In other words, no repeated surveys of the same individuals were
20
conducted. Instead, different cohorts of immigrants that differed in terms of the time
spent in the host country were compared. For example, Murphy & Anderson (2003)
studied acculturation of Japanese pilots in a training course in the US by comparing
terminal values (perceived happiness, pleasure, and salvation) of the pilots who just
arrived to those who have spend a year in the US. Alternatively, in a number of studies
representatives of different immigrant generations were compared to see whether their
culture-bound practices and attitudes were changing from generation to generation to fit
the “standards” of the host society (e.g., Georgas et al., 2003; Phinney & Flores, 2002;
Sands & Berry, 1993).
Implications of Culture in the Workplace
The discussion of the effects of cultural values on workplace processes should be
built around three central issues. First, what are the “culture-free” effects of cultural
diversity on the workgroup dynamics? International groups are faced with a unique set of
challenges, some of which are not directly related to differences in specific cultural
values or culture-bound traditions. For example, there may be differences in perceived
status depending on the country of origin of the organizational members, which may
affect group dynamics and communication process.
Second, what specific elements of culture have an effect on organizational
processes? A distinction must be made here. Culture is a multi-level construct. At the
external level, culture is represented by such easily-observable components as language,
clothing style, customs and traditions. At the internal covert level, culture is represented
by cultural values. Elements representing different levels of culture affect different
21
aspects of workplace dynamics. Therefore, the effects of culture on the workplace should
be discussed at each level separately.
Third, what aspects of work life do cultural values affect the most? Obviously,
some processes in organizations are strongly influenced by a country’s culture, while the
effect on other aspects is minimal.
Thus, I will build my discussion in the following order. I will start off with a brief
outline the common culture-free challenges a multi-cultural group has to deal with. In
this section, I will not be focusing on the effects of specific dimensions of culture on
workplace dynamics, but rather talk about general challenges faced by diverse
workgroups. Then, I will discuss the effects of external elements of culture on workgroup
dynamics. Next, I will focus on the effects of cultural values (internal level of culture) in
the workplace and explain which ones I find the most influential. Lastly, I will analyze
which aspects of work life the cultural value diversity affects the most and why.
“Culture-Free” Challenges of Organizations with International Staff
Even before differences in specific cultural values come into play, members of
international groups are faced with a unique set of obstacles that affect dynamics and
communication in groups. The “culture-free” challenges are usually related to
inequalities in perceived status, representation, and language proficiency.
Status Inequalities
Status difference can be actual or perceived. Actual status depends on the person’s
position in the organization’s formal hierarchy. Perceived status is usually determined by
22
the individual’s experience, personal connections, and also largely by stereotypes. Even
though perceived status inequalities are informal, they can profoundly affect
interpersonal communication in an organization.
Preconceptions and stereotypes about the superiority or inferiority of one’s own and
others’ nationalities and countries of origin could be a source of perceived status
inequality. It has been found that international employees who come from developed and
economically strong countries are usually judged as the most qualified and are ascribed,
consciously or unconsciously, a higher status. In contrast, those from developing
countries are initially perceived as possessing less expertise and are frequently seen as
group members with lower status (Ferrari, 1972). The colonial past can play a major role
as well (Turda, 2004). The effect can be further strengthened by visible differences in
socioeconomic status. As a result, lower socioeconomic status may be falsely associated
with lower intellect and skills.
According to Davison & Ward (1999), the resulting imbalance of power due to
perceived status inequality can suppress the initiatives of low status employees. Those
with higher perceived status tend to assume control of the group and lead the talks. In
extreme cases, the inequalities can lead to tensions and conflicts within the group.
Representation Inequalities
Inequalities in workgroup composition can also have a significant effect on
workplace dynamics. In groups with a skewed representation, the majority may dominate
during group meetings, while the minority may be left unengaged in the communication
process (Goto, 1997).
23
Based on the ratio of representatives from different cultures, the following are the
major types of international groups: single representative from a different culture,
majority/minority split, approximately equal numbers of representatives from two
different cultures, and representatives from multiple cultures with no obvious majority.
A single representative from a different culture, sometimes called a “token”, is the
most extreme case of structural inequality. Especially in larger groups, token individuals
tend to be treated as “invisible” by the rest of the group. Usually, after several
unsuccessful attempts to make their voices heard, token members give up and either
become passive or try to assimilate with the rest of the group (Davison & Ward, 1999). In
either case, the main benefits of diversity – a larger pool of new ideas and opinions and a
lower likelihood of groupthink – are wasted.
Compared to a token individual, several individuals from a different culture are less
likely to be completely “invisible”, but the majority may still act suppressively or with
ignorance towards the minority. Attempts by the minority to restore the balance of power
may lead to tensions between the subgroups and a struggle for dominance (Goto, 1997).
Eventually, this may lead to an open conflict. In addition, groups with such a
majority/minority split can face other sorts of difficulties. Unlike a token individual who
has nobody but the majority to associate with, minority members can socialize with each
other. This leads to the formation of detached, informal subgroups that function almost
independently from the majority. Stereotypes and “us-versus-them” attitudes may even
further advance this trend. Consequently, cooperation and exchange of ideas between the
minority and the majority subgroups may be hindered, which can lead to decreased
cohesiveness and effectiveness of the workgroup as a whole.
24
International teams with equal representation from only two cultures are usually the
most well-balanced. However, even in this case there is always a chance for “us-versusthem” conflicts or a covert struggle for dominance due to the absence of a prevailing
leader among the subgroups (Goto, 1997).
Workgroups with representatives from multiple cultures with no obvious majority
have to deal with an increased level of complexity due to the need to communicate across
multiple cultures. However, with proper management this type of group is most likely to
enjoy synergy from the diversity (Berger, 1996).
Language Proficiency Inequalities
Aside from differences in languages, which will be discussed later, differences in
fluency in working language of the organization can impact workplace dynamics.
Second-language speakers, who are less proficient and less comfortable communicating
in the group’s working language, tend to speak less compared to the first language
speakers. Moreover, native speakers tend not only to speak more, but also to be
somewhat ignorant of those who are less fluent in the language. It has been observed in
international teams that use English as their working language that even when non-native
English speakers tried to say something they were frequently interrupted by British and
American English speakers. The overall rate of interruption was as high as forty percent
(Davison & Ward, 1999). This means almost half of the attempted contributions and
potentially beneficial ideas were never heard and, consequently, lost for the group.
Moreover, being frequently interrupted may make some team members less willing to
even try to contribute to the discussions.
25
Further, multiple studies have shown that foreigners showing high language
proficiency were rated higher on achievement-related traits by native speakers as well as
by other foreigners (Elwell, Brown, & Rutter, 1984; Hui & Yam, 1987). In other words,
language fluency is correlated with the perceived credibility of the speaker. Thus,
regardless of their skills and qualifications, group members who are less fluent in the
language may be attributed with lower expertise and perceived as less knowledgeable in
the subject.
The issues discussed above may have several potentially problematic consequences
for communication processes in the workplace. First, compared to locals, internationals
are likely to speak less during meetings, be paid less attention, be more frequently
interrupted or even be informally excluded from the discussion. Inability to easily and
clearly express thoughts in a foreign language can be falsely associated with a lower level
of technical qualifications, which can further negative effects of language proficiency
inequalities on group dynamics. As a result, some valuable ideas and suggestions may not
be voiced or heard and the overall quality of the group meetings will decrease.
Performance on tasks that require brainstorming and idea generation will suffer the most.
Furthermore, it may appear that second-language speakers lack initiative and contribute
less to the organization’s success. This may lead to lower evaluations by supervisors and
colleagues.
Effects of Culture in the Workplace
Culture is a multi-level phenomenon. Such directly observable elements as
language, clothing style, cuisine, traditions, and customs represent culture at the external
26
level. At the internal or core level, culture is expressed through values and attitudes. I will
discuss separately the effects of cultural elements representing different levels of culture.
Effects of External Elements of Culture in the Workplace
The differences in external elements of culture mainly affect communication
processes in culturally diverse organizations. Language, as a primer attribute of culture,
plays a major role in communication in international organizations. Consequences of
language differences are obvious. In addition to the indirect effect of inequality in
language proficiency via perceived status, language differences directly affect
communication in international workgroups. The need to communicate in a foreign
language or use an interpreter makes interaction more difficult for everyone, including
those who are native to the working language. It may be difficult to understand secondlanguage speakers who are likely to speak with an accent and make occasional mistakes.
Other problems may arise from unfamiliar terminology, switching between dual
languages, speech acts, uncertainty about who is being addressed, or lexical inferences
(Orasanu, Fischer, & Davison, 1997).
Based on the analysis of work in international groups, Davison and Ward (1999)
found that although similar languages (for example, languages of the European language
group) are easier to learn, they can often cause the most misunderstanding and confusion.
Words that are the same or very similar in spelling or pronunciation are often assumed to
have the same meaning, which is frequently not true. For instance, “mist” means “haze”
or “fog” in English, but “manure” in German. Similarly, “pan” means “bread” in French
and “ape” refers to a “bee” in Italian. Slight differences in meanings can cause even
27
greater confusion, as it is harder to recognize that the words are actually different. For
example, “actualité” in French means “currently”, not “actually”. Frequent
communication confusions have been observed between even the British and Americans.
Because they speak practically the same language, they simply ignore the fact that some
words have different meanings in the two countries, and falsely assume they understand
each other.
Language differences, however, consist of more than just differences in words. To
begin with, native language deeply affects the way people think. For example, in the
Chinese and Japanese languages many characters are simplified pictures of objects or the
actions they stand for. As a result, native of these cultures are concrete thinkers and are
less comfortable with comprehending abstract and hypothetical speech that is usual for
Westerners (Redding, 1990).
The structure of the native language is another factor to consider. It can affect how
people structure their verbal accounts and where they put important information. For
example, in the German language verbs are usually put at the end of the sentence
(Pörksen, 2000). When speaking foreign languages, Germans tend to follow this pattern
and comprehension can be difficult for team members whose native language structure is
different. Moreover, in some cultures, for example in Chinese, it is considered rude and
aggressive to put important information at the beginning of a sentence, which is the usual
practice in English-speaking countries (Young, 1982).
Furthermore, non-verbal communication patterns also differ across cultures and can
cause confusion and misunderstanding between employees with different cultural
backgrounds. Grunts and hand gestures could be interpreted differently in different
28
cultures (Adler, 2002; Ingham, 1991). For example, in most of the world lowering and
raising the head (nodding) symbolizes agreement or acknowledgment and, conversely,
shaking the head sideways means “no”. In Bulgaria, the meaning is reversed. Another
example, making a circle between the thumb and forefinger means “OK” in America,
“nothing” in France, and is an extremely rude gesture in Colombia. In addition, physical
touching during conversations is very common in Latin cultures, but may be taken as
disrespect by representatives of other cultures (Briggs, 1999).
Speech pace can also be interpreted differently depending on one’s cultural
background. In a study conducted by Lee & Bolster (1992), Americans and Koreans were
asked to listen and evaluate several speakers. Results showed that Americans associated
rapid pace of speech with greater credibility, while Koreans attributed more credibility to
slow speakers (H. Y. Lee & Bolster, 1992).
Another aspect to consider is verbal agility. For example, verbal agility is typical in
Latin America and is usually expressed in quick responses and frequent interruptions.
According to Salacuse (1999), in comparison to Americans, Brazilians were found to
interrupt each other in conversations twice as frequently. As a result, when working
together, Americans may find people from Latin American impolite and rude, whereas to
Latin Americans, Americans can appear reserved and cold. In contrast to Latin cultures,
in Asia (especially in Japan) long response time and even extended periods of silence
during conversations are usual (Salacuse, 1999). Unfortunately, Westerners can interpret
this pattern as a lack of understanding or inability to comprehend the delivered material.
In addition to language, differences in traditions and protocols, which also represent
external level of culture, can impose obstacles in communication and negotiation
29
processes. For example, traditionally there has been a clear differentiation between the
roles assumed by men and women in some Eastern cultures, whereas in Western cultures
the difference is less pronounced (Hofstede, 1980). Usually men are given more
privileges and it is their right and responsibility to make decisions. Women, on the other
hand, may be accustomed to yielding to men’s will and not voicing their own opinions.
Finally, elements of traditional clothing, such as the hijab worn by Muslim women
or the turban worn by Indian men, can draw excessive and usually unwanted attention,
making international employees stand out and feel uncomfortable. This may results in a
lower level of participation during meetings, leading to poorer performance of the team
as a whole.
Effects of Cultural Values in the Workplace
Cultural values represent the internal level of culture. They govern individual
behavior and influence workplace processes in the most profound way. Virtually every
facet of organizational life, from such fundamentals as organizational design to such
micro-level issues as reaction to negative feedback, is affected by cultural values of
organization members.
I conducted a simplified frequency-count meta-analysis to find out which parts of
organizational life have been the most studied by cross-cultural management and I/O
scholars in terms of the affects of a country’s culture. Unfortunately, this approach does
not provide a measure of the effect size of various cultural values on specific
organizational processes. However, given the trend that it is mainly the studies that found
an effect make it to the journals while the no-effect studies rarely get published, the vote-
30
count approach can give a general sense about the most salient culture’s consequences in
the workplace.
To obtain the data, I conducted a search for studies that examined the effects of
culture in the workplace and found 2131 papers that empirically tested the consequences
of cross-cultural differences at the value level. The studies were published between 1980
and 2004. Based on the review, I identified 35 major organization-related areas that were
found to be significantly affected by cultural values (Table 1). Culture was also found to
significantly influence another 67 areas of organizational and social life, but the topics
were discussed in only one or two publications.
As shown in Table 1, issues of justice have been studied most frequently in
relations to culture. The effects of cultural values on distributive, procedural and
retributive justice and reaction to injustice have been well documented. Some of the most
frequent findings include the following.
In relation to distributive justice, people with individualist, masculine and low
power distance values tend to prefer the equity rule for reward and punishment
distribution, while those with collectivist, feminine and high power distance orientations
favor the equality rule (e.g., C. C. Chen, Meindl, & Hui, 1998; Mann, Radford, &
Kanagawa, 1985; Thomas, 1999). In terms of procedural justice, it has been found that
low power distance orientation is associated with a strong desire to actively participate
and have a say in the decision making process (e.g., Begley et al., 2002; Brockner et al.,
2001). This tendency also applies to those with individualistic and masculine values (e.g.,
Gire & Carment, 1993; Nyambegera, Sparrow, & Daniels, 2000), though the effect seems
to be a bit weaker.
1
The complete list is not provided due to space restriction. It can be obtained upon request.
31
Table 1. Culture’s Consequences in the Workplace: Most Popular Topics
Area Affected by Culture
Perception of Justice
Leadership and Decision Making Style Preference
Preference to Work in Teams
Cooperation in Groups
Negotiation Style
Organizational Commitment
Job Satisfaction
Ethical Sensitivity
Interpersonal Relations Style
Evaluation Bias and Favoritism
Impressibility and Guilt
Stress and Depression
Preferred Organizational Design
Willingness to Seek Professional Help in Difficult Situations
Reaction to Feedback
Performance
Effects of Cultural Diversity on Team Performance
Willingness to Whistle Blow
Self-Efficacy
Success Perception
Stress
Social Loafing
Marketing
Life Satisfaction
Entrepreneurship
Gender Egalitarism
Empowerment
Emotion Management
Country-Level Indicators
Compensation Type Preference
Citizenship Behavior
Unique
Number of Studies that
Reported Effect
43
21
15
15
13
12
9
9
7
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
67
The preferred conflict resolutions styles were also found to differ depending on
cultural values. Most of the studies that explored this issue showed that people from
individualist and achievement oriented cultures tend to use a direct confrontation style,
32
while those from collectivist and feminine cultures prefer avoidance, accommodation or
mediation tactics (Gabrielidis et al., 1997; Gire, 1997). Confucian values were also found
to relate to conflict avoidance and accommodative style in dispute resolution (Chiu,
1994; Morris et al., 1998). People with high power distance and benevolence orientation
(Schwartz, 1994) were also found to prefer the conflict to be resolved by a higher
authority (Kozan & Ergin, 1999; Morris et al., 1998).
Finally, it has been found that in cases when perceived justice has not been restored,
people with individualistic and low power distance orientation are likely to exercise
voice, while those with collectivistic and high power distance orientation prefer exit or
other passive reaction tactics. It was also found that perceived unfairness is likely to have
more negative consequences, such as lowered job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and productivity, for people with masculine, individualistic and low power
distance values, while the effect tend to be much weaker on people at the opposite ends
of the cultural dimensions.
Furthermore, a number of studies have shown that people with collectivist
orientations are likely to treat their in-groups and out-groups differently when dealing
with issues of justice. Specifically, collectivists tend to favor their in-groups, but be
somewhat ignorant of the interests of their out-groups. As a result, they are likely to
prefer generosity rule when distributing rewards and are less likely to pursue conflict
when dealing with their in-groups. However, when dealing with their out-group
members, collectivists are likely to exercise the tactics typical to individualists, i.e.
competition, direct confrontation, and pursuing self-interest (C. C. Chen, Meindl, &
Hunt, 1997; Fadil, 1997; Leung, 1987).
33
In terms of preferred leadership and decision making styles, people with high power
distance orientation tend to prefer authoritative leaders, while those on the opposite end
are more in favor of democratic and participative leadership styles (e.g., Ali, 1993;
Punnett, 1991). Also, those with masculine values prefer charismatic leaders, while those
from long-term orientation cultures favor leader who inspire and motivate (Kuchinke,
1999). Another interesting finding is that people with individualistic and masculine
orientation are more likely to desire leadership positions, while those with collectivist and
famine values tend to avoid leading roles and experience stress and anxiety when they
become in charge of a group (Ng & Dyne, 2001). Also, group empowerment works better
and improves performance when the group members have individualistic cultural values,
but the consequences may be negative for groups composed of collectivists (Hui & Yee,
1994).
Generally, it has been confirmed that collectivist prefer working in groups, while
individualist favor individual work (e.g., Earley, 1993; Ochoategui, 1998). However,
several points must be highlighted here. First of all, collectivists favor teamwork only if
they get to work with their in-groups with whom they have had close personal relations
(Earley, 1993). Secondly, teamwork preference is usually limited to preference for teambased responsibility and reward-distribution (Kirkman, 1997; Ochoategui, 1998), but not
necessary extend to willingness to cooperate. On the other hand, compared to
individualists, collectivists were found to be less likely to shirk and loaf even in lowaccountability context (Hutchinson & Gul, 1997; Katz, 1999). In terms of group
performance, it was found that groups composed of individualists perform better in low
task interdependence and individual reward system context, while performance in
34
collectivist groups was higher under high task interdependency and team-based
evaluation conditions (Hui & Yee, 1994).
In negotiations, individualists tend to pursue self-interest and choose competitive
strategies, while collectivists are likely to express a concern for the interests of the
opponent party and pursue integrative and cooperative renegotiation strategies (Chang &
Ding, 1995; Lituchy, 1997). Also, individualists are likely to choose direct low context
communication style, while collectivists are accustomed to conversational indirectness
and high context communication style when gestures, grants and other non-verbal
elements play a major role in meaning transmission (Gudykunst et al., 1996; Hara &
Kim, 2004).
I will not comment on each category in Table 2, but I would like to point out a few
other culture effect findings that seem to be very relevant to the workplace setting.
Compared to their counterparts, people from individualist, low power distance, masculine
culture are generally more sensitive to ethical issues such as nepotism, favoritism or
withholding relevant information from customers or business partners and are likely to
condemn such practices (P. M. J. Christie et al., 2003; Goodwin & Goodwin, 1999; Teoh,
Serang, & Lim, 1999). They are also more likely to expect the rules to be equally applied
to everyone, while those on the opposite cultural values tend to favor exceptions for their
in-groups (Trompenaars, 1993). Also, collectivists tend to be bias in performance
evaluations and judgments strongly favoring their in-groups (Y. R. Chen, Brockner, &
Katz, 1998; S. Lee, 2005). Finally, people with low power distance orientation tend to
seek feedback and usually react more positively to comments on their work, while those
35
with high power distance value may avoid receiving feedback (Earley & Stubblebine,
1989; Morrison, Chen, & Salgado, 2004).
I discussed only some of the effects of culture on organizational dynamics. Based
on the brief review, it is easy to see how cultural values can have a deep effect on
organizational design, management styles, group dynamics, and performance. It is
difficult to point out which aspects of organizational life are affected by a country’s
culture the most, because all organizational processes are tightly interconnected and the
“snowball” effect is possible. For example, perceived organizational justice, or its
absence, can have a remarkable effect on work and life satisfaction as well as motivation
of employees. As a result, organizational commitment and citizenship behavior will be
affected. Further, the impact may spread into the realms of trust and cooperation and
ultimately organizational performance will be affected. Thus, even though culture may
have a stronger direct effect on the organizational issues discussed above, its indirect
consequences are likely to touch every cell of an organization.
Relevance of Specific Cultural Dimensions to the Workplace
Unfortunately, most of the reviewed studies were based on Hofstede’s framework
of culture with the major focus on the effects of Individualism, Power Distance,
Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance. Moreover, about 70% of the studies looked
exclusively at the effects of Individualism-Collectivism and used the dimension to
differentiate between Eastern and Western cultures, which usually equated to a
distinction between so-called developing and industrialized countries. However,
Individualism-Collectivism is not the only important cultural dimension. Also, not all
36
types of cultural values seem to be equally relevant in the workplace setting. I used
several methods to evaluate which types of cultural values have the greatest impact on
organizational design and behavior. Although none of the methods is perfect for
answering the question, the combined results give a general feeling about the salience of
various cultural dimensions in terms of their impact on the workplace.
First, I conducted a thorough search for studies that were aimed at the development
of culture survey tools and found sixty-six instruments for quantitative assessment of
cultural values2. The vast majority of the studies came from the management and I/O
psychology and, based on the descriptions of the instruments, most of them were
specifically designed to study organizational and social phenomena. Based on a careful
inspection of the measures used in the instruments, I identified the 25 most popular
themes along which the survey items could be grouped (Table 2). The themes can be
further clustered into 10 major blocks of cultural dimensions.
As can be seen, Individualism-Collectivism has been the most popular cultural
dimension among cross-cultural studies scholars. However, the list of measures that
represents the construct is rather broad. It appears that that the term IndividualismCollectivism has been used in reference to such seemingly unrelated constructs as
Conformity, Self-Perception, or Preference for Teamwork. Based on the face validity, I
would suggest that these different facets of the construct be treated as separate cultural
dimensions to maintain construct pureness. Other popular cultural constructs included
Masculinity-Femininity, especially its Achievement Orientation facet, Power Distance,
and Uncertainty Avoidance. Given that these four cultural dimensions dominated the
2
The list of the studies describing the 66 culture survey can be obtained upon request. It is not included
here due to the space restrictions.
37
management and I/O psychology literature, it would probably be safe to assume, of
course with some limitations, that these are the dimensions that are most relevant to the
analysis of the culture’s consequences in the workplace.
38
Table 2. Most Popular Themes of Measures of Cultural Values, Based on the
Inspection of 66 Instruments for Measuring Culture
Cultural Dimensions
Conformity
Equality Seeking
Family Integration
Group Loyalty
Personal Independence
1. Different Facets of
Individualism-Collectivism
Self-Identity
Self-Interest
Self-Perception
Self-Reliance
Social Responsibility
Teamwork and Cooperation
Achievement/Competitiveness
2. Different Facets of Masculinity-Femininity Assertiveness
Gender Equality
Ambiguity Avoidance
3. Different Facets of Uncertainty Avoidance
Risk Avoidance
Short/Long Term Orientation
4. Different Facets of Past/Present/Future
Orientation
Tradition
5. Power Distance
6. Determinism
7. Pleasure-seeking
8. Emotional vs. Neutral
9. Relationship to Environment
10. Machiavellism
11. Other (12 dimensions)
Frequency
12
8
24
25
18
8
33
11
16
15
27
19
3
5
10
2
5
7
19
2
4
3
4
6
55
To further explore the issue, I conducted an additional expert opinion survey. Based
on the analysis of the same models of culture developed in the past 50 years and their
corresponding 66 instruments for quantifying cultural values, I identified 27 distinct
dimensions that represent different facets of culture (Table 3). Then, using a database that
I put together when working on an earlier large cross-cultural comparison meta-analysis,
I identified scholars who have published four or more cultural comparison studies in
leading international studies journals and contacted them with a request to evaluate to
39
what extent, in their opinion, each of the 27 dimensions is (a) culture-bound and (b)
work-related. The ratings were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Twenty-seven
responses have been obtained as of today. The results of the survey are summarized in
Table 3.
Relevance to
Culture
Relevance to
Workplace
Combined
Score
Table 3. Dimensions Described in Various Models of Cultures
Achievement Orientation: Willingness to win advance get a better
position earn more and succeed at any cost even if it means
harmed interpersonal relations and/or sacrifice of personal life.
3.16
3.89
7.04
Ambiguity Avoidance: The degree to which people are made
nervous by uncertain situations and ambiguity and prefer to have
clear rules guidance bureaucratic practices and rituals for every
situation.
3.72
3.69
7.41
Assertiveness: The extent to which an individual exhibits assertive
self-confident and tough behavior and values.
3.26
3.89
7.14
Attitude to Ritual Suicide: The degree to which individuals can
accept or even encourage suicide performed as a point of honor or
for a perceived higher purpose (e.g. suicide bombing or hara-kiri ).
3.87
1.83
5.70
Believing in Changeable/Unchangeable Basic Human Nature:
Believing that people’s nature/character does not change with time
2.90
3.02
5.92
Believing in Evil/Good Basic Human Nature: Believing that
people are essentially bad or good and as a result always expect
people to behave badly (avoid work steal lie) or well (work hard
be helpful be honest).
2.96
3.04
5.99
Conformity: The degree to which individuals restrain their actions
inclinations and impulses that are likely to upset or harm others.
3.59
3.40
6.99
Conservatism: The degree to which people resist quick change and
try to preserve the traditional way of doing things.
3.51
3.37
6.88
Dimensions
40
Relevance to
Culture
Relevance to
Workplace
Combined
Score
Determinism: Degree to which people believe that their paths are
predetermined by the forces they cannot control and what has to
happen will happen regardless of their efforts.
3.52
2.72
6.24
Emotional vs. Neutral: The degree to which people believe that
displaying feelings at work is unprofessional and inappropriate
3.55
3.26
6.81
Family Integration: The degree to which individuals maintain
close ties with their extended families consult their family
4.12
members when making important decisions and believe that family
members should live as close to each other as possible.
2.65
6.77
Gender Equality: Perceiving roles and abilities of men and
women as equal and believing that men and women have the same
rights and responsibilities and are capable of performing equally
well on most work-related tasks including managing people.
4.08
3.50
7.58
Humane Orientation: The degree to which individuals encourage
and reward fairness altruism generosity caring and being kind to
others.
3.20
3.29
6.49
Inclination to Teamwork: Preference to work in a team rather than
work alone willingness to share responsibilities rewards and
punishments with the team members and being ready to put
interests of the team before personal interests.
3.15
3.85
6.99
Independent/Interdependent Self-Perception: The extent to which
individuals include close relationships in their representation of
self. In other words the extent to which individuals feel that their
relatives, friends and organizations they belong to are an important
part of themselves.
3.64
3.35
6.99
Machiavellism: The extent to which a person is manipulative
deceiving and willing to use dirty tricks when dealing with others.
2.13
3.59
5.72
Personal Independence: The degree to which individuals value
their privacy believe what happens to them is their own doing and
prefer to struggle through personal problems or enjoy personal
achievement by themselves
3.53
3.35
6.88
Dimensions
41
Relevance to
Culture
Relevance to
Workplace
Combined
Score
Pleasure-Seeking: The extent to which people emphasize pleasure
and enjoyment of life and attribute secondary role to the work life;
belief that people work to live not live to work.
2.94
3.12
6.05
Power Distance: The extent to which people expect and accept
that power in organizations is distributed unequally; degree of
inequality among people which the individual accepts as normal.
3.95
3.88
7.83
Relationship Depth: The degree to which individuals develop close
relationships with their co-workers and remain close friends and
3.23
interact frequently outside the workplace settings.
3.36
6.59
Relationship to Environment: Subjugation vs. mastery; the extent
to which people feel they can and should change the environment
vs. they should adjust themselves to the environment.
3.08
3.10
6.17
Risk Avoidance: The extent to which people are reluctant to take
risk or make risky decisions.
2.78
3.82
6.60
Self-Identity: The extent to which individuals emphasize their
personal identity independent of others strive to be original and
different and do not like to be identified with their groups such as
families or organizations.
3.33
2.97
6.29
Self-Reliance: The degree to which individuals tend to rely on
themselves in difficult situations rather than expect help from
others.
3.38
3.60
6.99
Short- vs. Long-Term Orientation: Seeking quick gains even if it
means loses in the future vs. focusing on the future outcomes and
being ready to suffer losses in the short-run for the sake of the
future gains.
3.15
3.42
6.58
Status by Ascription vs. Status by Achievement: Perceiving
status based on who the person is (son of a famous or wealthy
person royalty older person man) vs. perceiving status based on
person’s personal achievement and skills.
4.03
3.65
7.68
Dimensions
42
Relevance to
Workplace
Combined
Score
Universalism vs. Particularism: People with universalism
orientation believe that rules must apply equally to everyone and
under every circumstance; while people with particularism
orientation believe that some exceptions from rules can be made
depending on the person (e.g. close friend) and mitigating
circumstances
Relevance to
Culture
Dimensions
3.69
3.62
7.30
The analysis of responses shows that, first of all, quite a few of these presumably
cultural dimensions were not seen as culture-bound by the cross-cultural studies experts.
For example, such popular dimensions as Pleasure-Seeking (a.k.a. Hedonism),
Machiavellism, Risk Avoidance, and Believing in Evil/Good and
Changeable/Unchangeable Basic Human Nature scored rather low in terms of the extent
to which they seem to be affected by one’s cultural background. The same could be said
about a number of dimensions in terms of their relevance to the workplace. For example,
such popular dimensions as Family Integration, Independent/ Interdependent SelfPerception (a.k.a. Self-Construal) and Humane Orientation - all were identified as those
having little effect on organizational behavior.
A number of dimensions scored high on one of the attributes, but low on the
other. For example, Attitudes to Ritual Suicide was seen by the survey participants as
highly culture-related, but not at all relevant to the workplace. On the other hand,
Inclination to Teamwork was rated as highly relevant to the workplace, but it score
relatively low in terms of the extent to which the orientation is determined by one’s
cultural background.
43
Only a few dimensions scored high as both culture-bound and work-related.
Among them is Ambiguity Avoidance, Gender Equality, Power Distance, Status by
Ascription-Achievement, and Universalism-Particularism. Based on the results of the
survey, as well as based on my personal experience, I would consider these cultural
dimensions as the most relevant in the organizational studies.
Surprisingly, none of the Individualism-Collectivism facets were among the
“winners”. The dimension has been extremely popular in cross-cultural research and its
effects on work processes have been well-established. However, the term IndividualismCollectivism has been largely misunderstood and used to label a very wide range of
cultural and personality constructs. Further, due to popularity of IndividualismCollectivism, other cultural dimensions have been traditionally excluded from the
analysis, although their effects could have been stronger than those of IndividualismCollectivism. I would still consider some of the facets of the dimension as relevant to the
workplace, but probably not quite as relevant as the dimensions listed in the previous
paragraph.
Theoretical Models of Acculturation
Theoretical models of acculturation could be split into two major groups:
unidimensional and multidimensional. Further, unidimensional models may be
unidirectional and multidirectional. Multidimensional models are typically based on two
dimensions, however variations are possible. Below is a detailed review of models in
each group.
44
Unidimensional Models of Acculturation
The traditional unidirectional acculturation models were based, for the most part,
on the early 20th century European immigration experience to the United States (e.g.,
Gordon, 1964; Warner & Srole, 1945). In the US context, acculturation was frequently
defined as the process of becoming more American-like. The basic assumption of the
unidimensional models is that an individual who immigrated from culture A to culture B
moves on a continuum of cultural values and practices away from his culture of origin A
to his host culture B (Diagram 1). According to Gordon (1964), one of the first
proponents of the unidimensional unidirectional model, acculturation to the host culture
is accompanied by “the disappearance of the ethnic group as a separate entity and the
evaporation of its distinctive values” (p. 81). In other words, the change is possible only
in the direction from culture A to culture B and always starts at the point representing
culture A and ends when the point representing culture B is reached.
Figure 1. Traditional Unidimensional Model of Acculturation
Culture
of Origin
(A)
Acculturation Continuum
Host
Culture
(B)
Under this paradigm, acculturation is seen as a process of absorbing cultural
values and norms and adopting practices of the host society while simultaneously
abandoning values and behaviors of the culture of origin. The main hypothesis derived
from the unidimensional models is that the longer immigrants live in the host society, the
45
greater is the degree of their assimilation into it and the weaker is their association with
their countries of origin. Eventually, the immigrants are expected to become completely
assimilated into the host society and lose any signs of identification with the “old”
society, i.e. rich the point representing culture B.
Based on the literature review, there seem to be two basic approaches to
empirically determining an individual’s position on the unidimensional acculturation
continuum. The positive approach is based on measuring the degree of similarity of the
immigrants’ cultural values and practices to those of the host culture. It is determined by
asking the basic question “How similar is the culture of the immigrant to that of the
locals?” In contrast, the negative approach is concerned with the deviance of the
immigrant’s cultural attributes from those of his or her culture of origin. The basic
question in this case is “How much does the immigrant still associates with his or her
culture of origin?” Mathematically, either approach should yield the same acculturation
score and indicate the same position at the acculturation continuum.
The traditional unidimensional model is based on the continuum ranging from
exclusively culture of origin to exclusively host culture with two distinct extremes:
complete unfamiliarity with the host culture (point A) and complete assimilation with the
host culture (point B). Triandis et al. (1986) refined the model by removing the
restrictions on the length of the acculturation continuum and going beyond the assumed
extremes. According to their model, acculturation from culture A to culture B can occur
in three ways (Diagram 2):
1. Accommodation: The traditional case when with the time the individual is
moving from culture A to culture B. In this acculturation mode, the more time
46
subjects from culture A spend in culture B, the closer are their responses to the
responses made by subjects from culture B.
2. Overshooting: The case when subjects from culture A “overadopt” culture B and
give responses that are even more extreme than those made subjects native to
culture B.
3. Ethnic affirmation: This is the case when in the process of learning the new
culture immigrants grow to dislike to it and, as a result, strongly reaffirm their
original cultural values. In this case, immigrants from culture A move in the
opposite direction from the position of the members of culture B and make
responses that are even more extreme than those made by people who have
remained in culture A.
Figure 2. Unidirectional Unrestricted Model
Accommodation
Culture A
Culture B
Affirmation
Overshooting
Another refinement of the model was made by Gordon (1964) who indicated that
different attributes of culture could be acculturating at a different pace. He suggested that
acculturative changes will be occurring in the following order:
1. Cultural-behavioral assimilation:
a. Intrinsic cultural patterns, such as religious and ethical values, preferences
for music and literature, recreational patterns, etc.
47
b. External: preferences for dressing style, manners, emotions,
pronunciation, etc.
2. Structural assimilation: entrance into the host society’s clubs, cliques, businesses,
schools, and legislature.
3. Marital assimilation.
4. Identification and cultural identity.
5. Attitude receptional assimilation: absence of discrimination.
6. Behavioral receptional assimilation.
7. Civic assimilation.
Unfortunately, this proposition has never been tested empirically and no
conclusions have been made about the nature and patterns of the relationships between
acculturative changes of these different elements of culture.
Multidimensional Models of Acculturation
As noted above, the unidimensional models are based on the assumption that
acculturation occurs along a single continuum over the course of time and acculturating
individuals are seen as being in a process of relinquishing the attitudes, values, and
behaviors of their culture of origin while simultaneously adopting those of their new host
society. In contrast, the bidimensional models of acculturation view the heritage and host
cultures as relatively independent of one another. This framework is based on the
assumption that individuals may adopt the host culture without giving up their culture of
origin. In other words, one’s ties to the two different home and host cultures form and
vanish independently.
48
Several authors offered variations of the bidimensional model of acculturation. In
its simplest version (Rudmin, 2003), the model provides the fourfold taxonomy of
acculturation types, depending on the degree of association with the heritage and the host
cultures (Figure 3). In Rudmin’s terminology, the heritage culture is referred to as the
“minority” (M) culture and the host culture is referred to as the “dominant” (D) culture.
The fourfold taxonomy is formed by combinations of Accept/Reject and
Minority/Dominant culture options.
49
Figure 3. Conceptual schematic of the fourfold acculturation taxonomy.
Do you identify with the minority culture?
Do you identify with the dominant
culture?
M+
YES
MNO
D+
YES
+ M / +D
- M / +D
DNO
+M / -D
-M / -D
Berry’s (1997b) version of the model has been the most popular. Based on the
model, the same four types of acculturation are possible. Berry labels them as Integration,
Assimilation, Separation (a.k.a. Affirmation), and Marginalization (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Berry’s Bidimensional Fourfold Acculturation Model
Is it considered a value to maintain
cultural identity and culture of the country
of origin?
Is it considered to be of value to
develop relationships with host
society and its culture?
YES
NO
YES
Integration
Assimilation
NO
Separation /
Affirmation
Marginalization
Integration involves maintaining cultural heritage while endorsing cultural values
of the host society. Assimilation involves relinquishing cultural heritage and completely
adopting cultural values of the host society. Separation involves maintenance of heritage
50
culture while rejecting cultural values of the host society. Finally, marginalization
involves rejection of both the heritage and the host cultures. According to Berry & Sam
(1997), the choice of acculturation mode depends on the perceived importance of
maintaining links with the heritage culture and the perceived importance of associating
with the host culture.
Alternative terminology for the fourfold typology was offered by Triandis (1997).
He criticized Berry’s (1997b) terms for lack of specificity and relevance and suggested
that they be changed to the following refined terms:
Integration  biculturalism (two cultures are involved);
Assimilation  negative multiculturalism (one loses the first culture);
Marginalization  double negative multiculturalism (one loses both cultures);
Separation  ethnic affirmation (increase of the first culture).
Although Berry’s fourfold model of acculturation has gained the most popularity,
it was not the first one to assume relative independence of association with heritage and
host cultures. Although usually not cited in more recent works, including those by Berry,
the model offered by McFee (1968) is based on a very similar model to the one described
above. In his studies of acculturation of Native Americans, McFee also focused on the
association with the Native American and Anglo-Saxon cultures. However, rather than
dichotomizing the responses in to the Yes/No format, McFree used continuous scores to
measure the degree of identification with each of the two cultures and position each of
the respondents in the bidimensional space (Figure 5).
51
Figure 5. McFee’s Bidimensional Fourfold Acculturation Model for Native Americans
Percentage of Indian Orientation
100
1
2
4
3
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentage of White Orientation
The bidimensional approach to measuring acculturation has been very popular in
the literature and a number of variations of the bidimensional models have been offered
by different authors. Unfortunately, as pointed out by Rudmin & Ahmadzadeh (2001),
there seems to be a disconnect between the works of the different authors with a lack or a
complete absence of citations of earlier publications. As a result, there has been some
confusion with the terminology that described the fourfold taxonomy. Such terms as
“adaptation strategies”, “modes of acculturation”, “types of acculturation”, “styles”,
“feelings”, “identities”, “paths”, “preferences”, and “statuses” has been used to describe
the different alternatives in the fourfold models of acculturation (Berry, 1988, 1992,
1994, 1997a; Berry et al., 1989; Berry et al., 1992; Hutnik, 1991; McFee, 1968)
(Coleman, Casali, & Wampold, 2001).
Further refinement of the acculturation typologies was offered by Coleman et al.
(2001). Their model is based on the “decision tree” of strategies for coping with cultural
52
diversity. The type of acculturation depends on the series of choices the individuals
make, consciously or unconsciously, about how they want to associate with home and
host cultures. The model results in six possible acculturation types (Figure 6).
Figure 6. The Decision Tree Model of Acculturation
Do you seek to
Do you attempts to
combine two or more Fusion
associate with your
cultures?
culture of origin and a
Yes
second culture at the
No
same time?
Integration
Do you attempts to Yes
associate
with your culture of origin
Do you associate
and a second culture at the
same time?
No
with more than one
Alternation
Do you associate with
more than one cultural
cultural group?
group?
Yes
No
Separation
Yes
Assimilation
Do you associate No
Yes
with only your
Do you try to
cultural group?
No
become a full
Acculturation
member of the
second culture?
As can be seen, the Decision Tree model closely overlaps with the fourfold
bidimensional model; however, it offers a more fine-grained typology of possible
acculturation modes.
Limitations of the Acculturation Models
Although quite popular, limitations of both unidimensional and multidimensional
models of acculturation have been pointed out. The main concern has been expressed in
53
regard to the fact that the models are based on an oversimplistic approach that assumes
the existence of only two cultures: the culture the individual comes from and the culture
of the host society the individual now lives in. Albeit the bi-cultural perspective offers
parsimony, this simplistic assumption may not fully capture the reality as it does not take
into account possible existence of neither third cultures nor subcultures within the host
society. It also assumes that there is a “dominant” culture in the host society, which may
not be the case in some countries where multiple cultures seem to coexist as equally
popular and influential without one delineating the others.
In addition, the models fail to recognize that acculturation actually affects not
only the newcomers, but also the locals who interact with the newcomers. Not only are
immigrants adopting new cultural values, but they share their cultural heritage and affect
the culture their host society. In some North American cities, the portion of immigrant
population is extremely high and the effect of the ethnic minority of the dominant cultural
group is immense (Souza, 2006) . Unfortunately, the models described above are based
on the assumption of the unchanging host culture.
Further, the multidimensional models have been subjected to some additional
criticism. Although multidimensional acculturation models seem to be a substantial step
forward from the traditional unidimensional paradigm of acculturation, they are subject to
certain limitations (Rudmin, 2003; Rudmin & Ahmadzadeh, 2001). First of all, existence
of some of the theorized acculturation types is questionable, at least in some domains of
life. For example, integration, which assumes incorporation of elements of both heritage
and host cultures, seems impossible in such a domain as religion. One cannot be Jewish
and Muslim at the same time, since the theology of these religions requires exclusivity.
54
Impossibility of integration is even more obvious at the behavioral level. One cannot
practice monogamy and polygamy or premarital virginity and premarital sexual
indulgence at the same time. Similarly, marginalization, which involves rejection of both
the heritage and the host cultures, seems impossible in terms of values that tend to be
bipolar, e.g., accept/reject, or high/low power distance. Unless a third alternative option is
available, a person cannot have no values or attitudes towards an issue or process.
Theorized Moderators of Acculturation
There seems to be a generally accepted set of moderators that are believed to
speed up or slow down the pace of acculturation. They include immigrant’s age, age at
immigration, gender, education level, cultural distance in terms of values and language,
length of education in the country of origin and in the host country, marital status,
ethnicity of the spouse, area of residence, and socioeconomic status in the country of
origin and the host country.
A more comprehensive list of the acculturation moderators was provided by Berry
(1997). He grouped the factors that affect the process of acculturation in the following
five categories:
1. Society of origin:
a. Ethnographic characteristics (e.g., language, religion, values)
b. Political situation (e.g., conflict, war, repression)
c. Economic conditions (e.g., poverty, disparity, famine)
d. Demographic factors (e.g., crowding, overpopulation)
2. Society of settlement:
55
a. Immigration history (longstanding vs. recent)
b. Immigration policy (intentional vs. accidental)
c. Attitudes towards immigrant (favorable vs. unfavorable)
d. Attitudes towards specific groups (favorable vs. unfavorable)
e. Availability of social support and settlement assistance
3. Group acculturation:
a. Physical (e.g., change from urban to rural)
b. Biological (e.g., nutrition, disease)
c. Economic (e.g., loss of status)
d. Social (e.g., isolation)
e. Cultural (e.g., dress, food, language)
4. Moderating factors prior to acculturation:
a. Demographics (e.g., age, gender, education)
b. Cultural (e.g., language, religion distance)
c. Economic (e.g., status)
d. Personal (e.g., health, prior knowledge)
e. Migration motivation (e.g., push vs. pull)
f. Expectations (e.g., excessive vs. realistic)
5. Moderating factors arising during acculturation:
a. Acculturation strategies (assimilation, integration, separation,
marginalization)
b. Contact and participation
c. Cultural maintenance
56
d. Social support
e. Coping strategies and resources
f. Prejudice and discrimination
Although the majority of the authors recognized the effects of these moderating
factors on acculturation processes, the empirical research has been typically limited to the
demographics. Traditionally, the analysis was focused on acculturation of immigrants
from developing countries that sought a new home in Western industrialized societies.
Thus, the research has been dealing mainly with truncated data that described only the
immigrants from relatively poor countries with usually oppressive regimes and little
freedom who were coming to relatively rich and free countries. Therefore, the research
was mainly focused on the voluntary immigrants who were highly motivated to fit in the
new society.
Furthermore, the research has been conducted within the majority-minority
paradigm with the assumption that the minority always seeks to conform to the majority.
However, depending on the context, the opposite is possible. For example, due to its
colonial past, the issue of perceived superiority and inferiority of some nations is salient
in Europe. Therefore, in some former European colonies, descendents of the former
colonists may represent the minority, yet their culture may be perceived as superior and
sought to be adopted by the representatives of the majority.
Research Questions
57
The following section lists the four main research questions that will be addressed
by this study with the statement of relevant hypotheses and a brief description of the
intended analysis techniques.
1. What are the patters of acculturation at the symbolic level of culture and at the level
of work-related cultural values?
This section of the research will be mainly exploratory. It is hypothesized that
exposure to a foreign cultural environment leads to acculturation at both levels of culture.
However, no prior specific hypotheses are made regarding the pace or the patterns of the
acculturation process.
Because work-related cultural values will be measured along a set of bipolar
dimensions, the unidimensional approach will be used to study work-related
acculturation. Under this framework of culture, one cannot be high and low power
distance oriented simultaneously. Therefore, the multidimensional approach will be
inappropriate in this case, because such acculturation types as marginalization (rejection
of both cultures) and integration (acceptance of both cultures) will inconsistent with the
framework of bi-polar cultural dimensions. However, it must be noted that although from
mathematical point of view being simultaneously high and low power distance oriented
does not seem to make sense, the integration of these two approaches could be possible in
the following ways. It has been shown that individuals may change their culture-related
behavior depending on the circumstances. Immigrants have been observed to alternate
their behavior when interacting with representatives of their ethnic group vs. the locals. It
was also found that bi-lingual individuals tend to answer identical questions differently
58
when survey is administered in different languages (Bond & Cheung, 1984; Bond &
Yang, 1982; A.-W. Harzing & Maznevski, 2002; Marin et al., 1983).
Further, no restrictions will be imposed in terms of the direction and limits of
acculturation on the unidimensional continuum. Along with assimilation, such options as
overshooting (overadopting values of the host society) or cultural affirmation (change in
values away from the host culture) will be seen as possible.
Acculturation at the symbolic level will also be measured using the
unidimensional approach. Rather than measuring separately the degree of association
with each culture and differentiating between different types of acculturation
(assimilation, integration, affirmation, and marginalization), my primer focus will be on
measuring the degree of association with the host culture. The measurement will be done
positively. That is, I will measure conformity in language, appearance and habits to the
host country’s (Canada’s) “standards” rather than deviance of these characteristics from
the “standards” in the country of origin. This will allow me to operationalize
acculturation at the artifact level with a single score, which will make my analyses
simpler and cleaner. In the unidimensional unrestricted framework, I will still be able to
account not only for assimilation, but also for such acculturation types as overshooting or
ethnic affirmation. Unfortunately, this approach will not allow for capturing cultural
marginalization (rejection of both cultures) or integration (acceptance of both cultures).
However, given the predominantly voluntary nature of immigration to Canada,
marginalization is highly unlikely. Although integration is probable, given my main
research question (Is appearing Canadian means thinking Canadian?), I am primarily
interested in measuring how much a person appears “Canadian”, whether he or she can
59
and prefers to speak English and whether he or she follows Canadian traditions and the
way of life. It is less of a concern if the person can also still speak the language or
practices traditions of his or her country of origin. Therefore, the potentially more
comprehensive bidimensional approach to measuring acculturation at the symbolic level
is not essential for providing answers to my research questions.
Additionally, I will explore whether acculturation at either level is a linear or
curvilinear process, and if curvilinear, what the shape of the acculturation curve is. This
question seems to be overlooked in the literature. Some of the possible shapes of the
acculturation line are depicted in Figure 7. Graph A depicts a linear process with
acculturation occurring at the same pace from day one throughout the individual’s life in
the foreign environment. Graph B suggests that the pace of acculturation diminishes over
time. According to graph C, acculturation is very slow at the beginning, but speeds up
after the introduction to the new environment and plateaus eventually. Another
theoretical possibility has been inspired by the expatriate adjustment literature (e.g.,
Adler, 2002; Florkowski & Fogel, 1999; Selvarajah & Russell, 1998b). The acculturation
process may involve a honeymoon-like rapid change of cultural values towards those of
the host society in the first short period of time with the subsequent slow down and a
reverse process in the later periods (Graph D). Graphs E and F represent the discussed
earlier “overshooting” and “ethnic affirmation” cases.
However, at this time I do not make any hypotheses about the duration of each
phase. The analysis will be run separately for each level of acculturation. Simple data
plotting will be used to address this research question.
60
Research Design
As noted by Cook & Campbell (1979), social scientists rarely have an opportunity
to conduct their research based on an ideal controlled experiment. Due to limited
resources and, most importantly, the inability to completely isolate the subjects from the
effects of the environment, in most cases the human behavior scholars have to rely on
suboptimal quasi-experimental design, the results of which can never be interpreted with
perfect certainty. Nevertheless, a properly designed and well-executed quasi-experiment
can yield valuable insights and significantly improve our understanding of the researched
phenomenon.
The structure of my answer will be the following. First, I will describe the ideal
research design for answering my specific research question. As will be evident from my
comments, this ideal research design is practically impossible. In the next section, I will
provide a description of the best practically achievable research design. However, I will
show that this design is also unfeasible due to the extremely high resource requirements.
Finally, I will offer three alternative research designs that are both practically achievable
and theoretically sound. They are (1) panel time-series analysis, (2) cohort time-series
analysis, and (3) quasi-longitudinal cohort analysis. The threats to validity as well as the
pro’s and con’s of each of these methods will be discussed in detail. As an example, I
will use the acculturation study that I described in my dissertation research proposal.
Key Term Definitions
61
Before I move on to the analysis of the different research designs, let me define
some key terms I will be using in my discussion.
The basic research question: What is the effect of treatment on the change in workrelated cultural values?
Treatment: Contact with Canadian culture.
Measurement of treatment: Length of exposure to the cultural environment of
Canada, in my case measured as the time (years) spent in Canada.
Research Subjects: Immigrants in Canada
Control Subjects: (1) Those who stayed in the country of origin of the research
subjects (non-immigrants) and (2) Those born in Canada (host country locals)
Ideal Research Design
The soundness of findings of research can be assessed in terms of their internal and
external validity. Internal validity refers to the validity with which we infer that the
relationship between two variables is causal. External validity refers to the validity with
which we can infer that the presumed causal relationship can be generalized to and across
alternate measures of the cause and effect as well as across different types of subjects,
conditions, and times (Cook & Campbell, 1979). In addition, statistical conclusion
validity remains an issue. Even when the research design is optimal, the validity of the
final findings may be in question due to imperfect psychometric and statistical techniques
that determine the validity, reliability and appropriateness of behavioral and attitudinal
measures and analysis methods used to obtain the findings.
62
According to multiple authors (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Spector, 1981), the
following key conditions must be satisfied to conduct a true experiment and provide an
internally and externally valid answer to a research question.
1. The random assignment of the subjects to treatment/no-treatment conditions.
2. The ability to manipulate the effects of the independent variables on the
outcome.
3. Isolation of the effects of variables that are not the focus of the analysis, or in
other words, to eliminate the effects of the external environment of the subjects in the
experiment.
Using the standard research design notation, the following experimental research
design will satisfy each of the conditions listed above and can potentially provide
adequate answers to the key question of my research.
____________________
O1 X O2 X O3 … X On
-----------------------------O1
O2
O3 … On
-----------------------------O1
O2 O3 … On
____________________
The experiment must be longitudinal time-series analysis involving three cohorts of
participants: research subjects and two groups of control subjects. The research subjects
must be randomly assigned to the treatment. That is, which of the subjects will immigrate
(treatment) and which will stay in their home country (control) must be randomly
determined. The second control group, the Canadians, must also be randomly selected
from the population of the host country, Canada, to represent the host society. Further, to
improve the external validity (generalizability) of the findings, ideally the experiment
63
must be conducted in multiple countries simultaneously. That is, subjects from multiple
countries must be selected and randomly assigned to immigrate to different countries.
Also, the subjects must represent different demographic subgroups, each being
substantially large to enable the isolation/interpretation of the effects of demographics on
acculturation patterns. The observations (surveys) must be conducted regularly,
preferably at least twice a year for a minimum of 25 years, which will satisfy the rule of
thumb of the minimum 50 time periods for the time-series analysis (Cromwell et al.,
1994; Spector, 1981).
The irrelevant possible effects of the environment must be isolated. For example, it
was shown that country characteristics affect national and individual cultural values and a
change in a country’s political or economic system can lead to a change in culture.
Therefore, the effects of such external factors as third cultures must be absent. Also, the
home and the host cultures must be perfectly stable over the 25-year research term and
must not be affected by such external factors as war, or political or economic crises, or
economic booms.
Obviously, this research design is practically impossible. Even if the colossal
resources were found to recruit the subjects, the effects of the external environment on
the experiment could not be eliminated and as such perfect stability of the research
environment cannot be ensured. Furthermore, even such a perfect design would not
absolutely guarantee valid results due to possible imperfections in the reliability and
validity of the variable measurement. For example, is seems impossible to perfectly
measure the extent of the treatment, i.e. the extent of the contact with the host society.
The proposed proxy represented by the time spent in the host society, obviously, does not
64
fully capture the construct under investigation. Even a more complex measure is not
likely to ensure perfect measurement.
Ideal Achievable Research Design
It appears that that the ideal research design described above cannot be achieved
due to the following reasons. First of all, the manipulative abilities of the researcher will
be extremely limited. Neither random assignment of the subjects to the treatment, nor the
ability to manipulate the effects of the independent variables seems possible. Also, the
researcher will not be able to eliminate the effects of irrelevant external variables and
guaranty the perfect stability of the experimental settings (national cultures of the
participating countries).
Without the ability to control/manipulate the independent variables, we cannot be
certain about the effects of the treatment and the causality structure, but rather can only
conclude that the groups differ with respect to the dependent variable and speculate that
the difference is due to the treatment. In other words, we can find that the new
immigrants and those who have lived in Canada for 25 years have different cultural
values, but we will never be certain that the difference is due to differences in the time
spent in Canada and not due to other reasons.
Although implementing a true experiment seems impossible in our case, a carefully
designed quasi-experiment will allow for findings that will be acceptably valid. Even
though random assignment and variable manipulation are impossible, reasonable
conclusions about causality can be made by observing and comparing different subgroups
of participants under various conditions.
65
Given the range of restrictions discussed above, the following quasi-experimental
research design is theoretically sound, practically possible, and seems to be ideal among
the available options. It is essentially the same research design described above; however,
this time there are no requirements of random assignment to treatment, no manipulated
independent variables, and isolation from the external environment is not necessary.
The design must be a longitudinal time-series quasi-experiment involving three
cohorts of participants. The following cohorts of participants must be observed over time:
immigrants, non-immigrants, and host society locals. To make it possible to account for
the effects of external variables, the observations must be conducted in multiple countries
of origin and countries of immigration. Additional control variable representing all
known external factors must be added to the analysis. Also, the subjects in each cohort
must represent each possible subgroup with respect to the demographic characteristics.
Further, the overall samples from each country must be reprehensive of their
corresponding societies. The observations (surveys) must be conducted at least twice a
year for a minimum of 25 years.
It appears that even though this research design is achievable in theory, in practice it
would be extremely difficult to conduct such a project. However, even if a researcher
succeeded ion the execution of this research, there would be still an extensive list of
threats to the validity of the findings. The threats to validity are discussed in detail below.
Threats to Statistical Conclusion Validity
Fist, let me consider the likely threats to validity due to deficiencies in measurement
and statistical analysis tools.
66
Low statistical power: Given the extensive list of independent and control variables,
it could be highly problematic to satisfy the sample size requirement. Due to possible
attrition, the sample size issue will be especially salient at the later stages of the research.
Violated assumptions of statistical tests: Most of the statistical tools, including the
time-series analysis, can be effectively used only if certain data requirements are
satisfied. For example, some of the assumptions of the time series analysis include the
absence of the multicollinearity among independent variables, a normally distributed
dependent variable, and equal intervals between the survey periods. In addition, there are
strict requirements regarding missing data and error structure. Even partial violation of
any of these requirements can negatively affect the validity of the findings.
The reliability and validity of measures: It is unlikely that the measures used in the
research will be perfectly reliable and valid and thus even under a perfect research design
the validity of the findings will be subject to limitations.
Even though the research design described above is the best option from the range
of theoretically achievable options, the internal and external validity of the findings may
be further hindered by the following factors.
Threats to Internal Validity
Selection bias: The most important disadvantage of this achievable quasiexperimental time series design compared to the previously described true experimental
desing is that this time the assignment to treatment is non-random. It is possible that the
values of those people who chose to immigrate are fundamentally different from the
values of those who chose to stay in the host country. One the other hand, this issue is
67
less relevant in my specific case, given that the acculturation will be measured positively
(How similar the values of the immigrants are becoming to those of the locals?). In other
words, it is less of a concern how much the values of the immigrants will deviate from
those of the non-immigrants, instead the focus is on the growing similarity of immigrant
values to those of the locals.
Maturation: As with any longitudinal research, it will be extremely difficult to
separate the effects of the treatment and maturation. Even if different waves of surveys
indicate a gradual change in cultural values of the subjects, the researcher cannot be sure
whether the difference is due to the time spent in the host country or because the subjects
have become older.
Familiarity with the instrument: The described research design requires that each
subject answers the questions 50 times. After taking the test several times, the subjects
will likely remember the questions, as well as how they responded to them in the past.
The familiarity with the test can lead to a response bias. Even though this is more of an
issue for performance tests, such as the GRE or GMAT, the validity of the responses to
attitudinal tests can suffer too due to familiarity with the test. For example, the subjects
may try to replicate the responses they gave the last time they were surveyed.
Mortality and differential subject loss: The issue of attrition has already been
discussed in relation to the sample size requirements. However, mortality cannot only
lead to a decrease in the sample size, but also to a change in the sample composition. For
example, because on average women live longer than men, it is likely that the relative
number of women in the sample will be higher at the end of the research project. Also, it
is possible that people with higher socioeconomic status would have better access to
68
healthcare, leading to a lower mortality rate in this subgroup. Thus, it would not be clear
whether the change in cultural values over time was observed due to the treatment or
because of the changes in the sample composition. Of note, this problem can be partially
corrected via weighting the scores by the demographic variables.
Instrument reactivity: As described by Spector (1981), in nuclear physics the
validity of findings is always imperfect due to the fact that the measurement of subatomic
particles is never exact because instruments disturb the particles being measured. In
social sciences, it is possible that the attitude measurement instrument may affect the
attitudes of the subjects. In addition, the subjects may change their behavior when they
know they are being observed. The latter is known as the Hawthorne Effect
(Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939).
Lack of standardization: Even if the researcher can assure perfect consistency of the
survey procedures over the 25-year research period, developments in the language and
changes in the environment can lead to a lack of standardization. For example, as
language evolves, the meaning of some words in the questionnaire may change, leading
to a change in how the respondents interpret the questions. Also, it has been shown that
the language of the survey and the proficiency of the respondent in the language of the
survey can significantly alter the responses (Bennett, 1977; A.-W. Harzing & Maznevski,
2002; Marin et al., 1983). It is likely that the language proficiency of the immigrant
respondents will evolve over the 25-year research period leading to changes in their
response patterns. Another example shows that in surveys concerning racial issues,
blacks were observed to response differently if approached or interviewed by a black
person versus a white person. While twenty years ago most of the researchers were white,
69
today the percentage of blacks in social sciences is substantial. Therefore, the difference
in responses to the same survey twenty years ago compared to those given this year may
be due to the change in the racial composition of the interviewer group, not due to the
treatment.
Ambiguity about the direction of causal influence: Even though it may appear
straightforward that time causes changes in values, not vise versa, the opposite is actually
possible. The problem may be similar to that of differential subject loss. It could be
hypothesized that the cultural values of the immigrants do not change, but that
immigrants whose cultural values are different from those of the locals never fully adjust
and repatriate back to their home countries. In other words, the length of immigration
(time) is affected by the initial unchanging cultural values of the immigrants. If this is the
case, then as more “bad fit” immigrants return to their home countries, the sample
average of the remaining subjects will change due to the selection bias. The problem can
be recognized and partially mitigated by analyzing the profiles of the repatriates and
introducing appropriate weightings in the analysis.
Survey time history: Another factor that may disturb the response pattern and make
causal inference difficult is the time of the survey. For example, significant preceding
events, such as invasion of the immigrants’ country of origin by the host country, could
have an effect on participants’ attitudes.
Threats to External Validity
Lack of sample representativeness: Although we assumed that in our “ideal
possible” research project the treatment and control samples will be perfectly
70
representative of their societies of origin and every sub-population will be included in our
sample, in actuality this would be extremely difficult to achieve. As a result, the findings
could not be generalizable to the entire populations or to some specific sub-populations.
History: The generalization of the findings obtained based on the described timeseries quasi-experiment will be limited. By the time the research is finished, 25 years will
have passed since the time of immigration of the research participants. It is highly
possible that the “history” of the next immigrant generations will be different. As a result,
the later immigrant generation may differ substantially in terms of their demographics
and motives for immigration. Also, the attitudes to immigrant groups may change in the
host society. This may alter the experiences of different immigrant generations causing a
variation in acculturation patterns of immigrants leaving their home countries in different
epochs. Thus, the generalizability may suffer as the findings of earlier research may not
apply to later periods.
Interaction of selection, history, and treatment: The key question here to ask is
whether the treatment will be the same if we selected a different group of subjects. It is
possible that the locals have different attitudes to different immigrant groups, which may
lead to different acculturation patterns of the representatives of these different immigrant
groups. In other words, depending on their background, different immigrant groups may
experience different treatments (contact with the host society). In addition, depending on
history, the effect of the selection on treatment may change. For example, attitudes to
immigrants from Arab states significantly worsened in the US following the events of
September 11th, 2001. As a result, Arab immigrants who arrived in the US in 2002 could
have been subjected to a different treatment than that experienced by Arab immigrants
71
who came there 10 years ago (history) or by non-Arab immigrants who also arrived in
2002 (selection). Thus, it would be difficult to make valid conclusions whether the
difference in values was in deed due to the time spent in the host society or due to the
difference in treatment caused by the effect of selection and history.
Interaction of settings and treatment: Although the ideal achievable research design
assumes that the study will be conducted in multiple countries simultaneously, it is
unlikely that every single society will be included in the analysis. Thus, the
generalizability of the findings to some settings may be limited. For example, we would
not be certain whether the acculturation patterns observed in Canada will be same in a
society that was not included in the study.
Plausible Research Designs
Even though the research design described above is achievable in theory, it is
obvious that no researcher is likely to have the resources that would enable such a
project. The following section will describe three alternative research designs that appear
to be theoretically sound and could be executed with the resources available to a scholar
at a typical North American research institution. These research designs are largely
subject to the same validity threats as described above, however, each design has unique
pro’s and con’s that will be discussed in this section.
1. Panel Time Series Analysis
Essentially, this quasi-experimental research design does not differ much from the
“best achievable” design. However, it is somewhat simplified to reduce the resource
72
requirements which makes it practically possible. The following diagram depicts the
research design in the standard notation.
____________________
O1 X O2 X O3 … X On
-----------------------------O1
O2
O3 … On
-----------------------------O1
____________________
This time, only two groups of subjects will participate in the project: the immigrants
(treatment) and the locals (control). The research will be conducted in a single country
(Canada), but immigrants from several countries can be included in the study. Whereas it
is relatively easy to collect longitudinal data on more than one immigrant group in a
single host country, it would be rather difficult to collect longitudinal data in each of their
countries of origin. Because acculturation can be measured as the difference between the
values of the immigrants and locals, there is no real need for the second non-immigrant
control group (those in the immigrants’ countries of origin did not consider immigration).
However, to strengthen the research design and account for possible selection bias, it
would be recommended to conduct a one-time survey of non-immigrants at the beginning
of the time-series.
It would be desirable to have as many waves of survey as possible, but probably ten
to fifteen years with one survey per annum will be reasonably sufficient and practically
possible. Because the change in values is likely to be more rapid in the first years
following immigration, it would make sense to have a shorter period between the survey
waves initially and less frequently in the later years. However, this may make the
73
interpretation more difficult as one of the assumptions of the time series analysis will be
violated, namely equal intervals between the surveys.
Finally, the list of the variables will be much shorter. Of course, it is desirable to
account for all external factors that may impact the quasi-experiment, but because of the
limited resources only the most relevant independent and control variables must be
included in the analysis, such as demographics (age at immigration, education, gender,
etc) and major country characteristics (wealth, freedom, etc).
Such a research design will be subject to the same limitations as the “best
achievable” one. However, because of the lower representativeness of the sample and a
smaller number of controls, some of the threats to validity will be more pronounced. In
terms of internal validity, due to a smaller number of control variables, causal inference
will be more difficult. In terms of external validity, because of the single host-country
setting and a limited number of immigrant groups under consideration, the
generalizability of the findings will be quite limited.
It is obvious, unfortunately, that even such a simplified time series analysis will be
quite demanding in terms of the required resources and thus may not be optimal. One of
the major challenges will be the retention of the sample size and composition. It is even
possible that after a few waves of survey the sample size will be too small to carry on
with the research. As a result, the collected data and the effort will be wasted. This would
be less of a problem under the second “plausible” research design.
2. Cohort Time Series Analysis
74
The following diagram depicts the cohort time series quasi-experimental time
series.
____________________
O1
-----------------------------X O1
-----------------------------X O1
-----------------------------…
-----------------------------X O1
____________________
The difference between this and the previous research designs was that the same
subjects are measured every time in the panel time-series, hence the issue of the sample
size and composition retention. Under the cohort time series design, every time a
different cohort of subject will be selected and surveyed. Specifically, the first time the
participants will be a cohort of new immigrants; a year later, a cohort of immigrants who
arrived in the host country a year ago; next year, a cohort of immigrants who have lived
in the host country for two years; and so on. The main assumption here is that as long as
the cohorts do not differ substantially in terms of the cohort characteristics, they can be
treated as “the same” group.
Of course, the groups will never be perfectly identical. Even when the demographic
composition of the groups is not changing and there is no differences in the history of
each group because they all represent the same immigrant generation, there may be a
selection bias or other subtle and covert factors. Therefore, internal reliability will suffer
as the additional factors such as varying cohort characteristics will make causal inference
more difficult. From this perspective, the panel design is preferred. On the other hand,
75
careful selection of the subjects under the cohort design can potentially minimize the
threat to validity due to maturation and familiarity with the instrument. Most importantly,
however, the cohort design allows for sample size retention for a substantially long
period. In the case of missing data, additional responses can be obtained. Careful
selection can also easily correct the differential attrition problem. However, the other
limitations of the panel design will apply to cohort design as well.
Another limitation of the cohort time-series relates to the ambiguity of the error
structure. Although autocorrelation is likely to be stronger under the panel design, in this
case the error structure is likely to be reasonably well-known and thus can be taken into
account. Under the cohort design, the error autocorrelation is likely to be weaker, but it
would be more difficult to make valid assumptions about the error structure and thus it
would be more difficult to handle the problem.
However, the most significant limitation that equally applies to both time series
designs is that that they can offer results only after a long period of time, more than a
decade in my case. First of all, one cannot be sure that one will be able to continue and
ever finish such a long research project. Second, there is always a risk that by the time the
results are available they may no longer be relevant.
Of note, both panel and cohort time series analyses can be conducted using archival
data. Unfortunately, there seems to be no data available that could be used to answer my
specific research questions. Furthermore, as noted by numerous researchers (e.g., Cook &
Campbell, 1979; Spector, 1981), it is usually very difficult to locate and gain access to
archival data. Also, the usability of the archival datasets is limited due to changes in
survey and treatment procedures, missing cases, changes in item wording, etc.
76
3. Quasi-longitudinal Cohort Analysis
The third “plausible” research design can potentially solve some of the limitations
of the earlier designs.
______
O1
--------X1 O1
--------X2 O1
--------…
--------Xn O1
______
As in the case of the cohort time series, the quasi-longitudinal cohort analysis is
based on responses from different immigrant cohorts, but this time the all cohorts are
surveyed simultaneously. Specifically, a cohort of new immigrants, a cohort of
immigrants who spent a year in the host country, two years, three years and so on – all
are surveyed at the same time.
Compared to the panel time series, the major drawback of this design is weaker
internal validity of the findings due to differences between the cohorts. On the other
hand, its major advantages are the simplicity, relatively little resource requirements, and
the ability to obtain results rather quickly. In addition, if the contacts of the participants
are obtained, the data collected through a quasi-longitudinal cohort survey can be used as
the first step of the panel time-series.
77
Most of the threats to validity listed in relation to the panel and cohort time series
designs will apply to the quasi-longitudinal cohort analysis. However, some of them will
be more appealing, whereas negative effects of others will be minimal in this case.
Under the quasi-longitudinal cohort research design, the threat to validity due to the
differences in history of each generation is very salient because the cohorts represent
different immigrant generations who arrived in the host country at different times. It
would be impossible to find out with certainty whether the cohorts differed in terms of
their initial values. Thus, it will be difficult to prove the effects of the treatment as the
inter-cohort differences could be due to the initial differences in values, not because of
the value change in response to exposure to the foreign culture. For example, the initial
difference in cultural values can be influenced by the variations in demographic and
socio-economic composition of cohorts and the cultural values in the home country of the
immigrants at the time of immigration. In addition, different immigrant generations could
have been subjected to different treatments due to a change in cultural values in Canada,
access to ethnic communities, changing attitudes to immigrants, and attractiveness of
Canadian culture to immigrants. The effects of some of these factors can be minimized
by adding control variables for demographics and socio-economic characteristics;
however, the other factors would be more difficult to deal with.
Compared to a quasi-longitudinal design, both panel and cohort time series designs
seem “cleaner” with respect to history, because in time series the participants represent
the same immigrant generation, generalizations to other representatives of this generation
will be quite reliable. On the other hand, as the disturbing effects of history-specific
characteristics of the earlier immigrant generations weaken over time, the quasi-
78
longitudinal cohort design seems to have stronger predictive power if the findings are
generalized to different immigrant generations. However, the opposite is also possible.
For example, a split equilibrium is possible when those who immigrated earlier had better
opportunities and were able to easily accumulate initial capital and later immensely
multiplied their wealth, because “money makes money”. Conversely, those who
immigrated later could have been faced with fewer opportunities due to various reasons.
As a result, they never made it past minimum wage and welfare, because “poverty makes
poverty”. In this case, the remarkable difference between immigrant generations may
severely undermine the validity of the findings.
Unlike the time series design, the quasi-longitudinal design cannot detect a change
in cultural values in the host society, which is one of the threats to internal validity. To
deal with this issue, external information could be used to make inferences about
tendencies in culture in the host society. For example, the GLOBE study (House et al.,
2004) is a longitudinal project that has involved several waves of survey in most of the
counties and the research continues. Also, a meta-analysis by Taras and Steel (2006)
described changes in the cultures of 66 counties over the last 30 years and can be used for
making assumptions about the dynamics of the host country culture.
The threat of survey time history is more salient in the case of the quasilongitudinal cohort design. Because all cohorts are surveyed at the same time, the
“history” of this specific short period becomes very important. Although unlikely, it is
possible that the survey will be conducted shortly after a significant event such as war or
an election that has a potential to influence the subjects’ responses on the value test. In
79
the time series case, even if one of the survey waves will coincide with such an event, it
will be possible to detect it by comparing responses representing different times.
One of the less obvious but most important advantages of the quasi-longitudinal
design is the appeal of interpretability of the findings to the practitioner. Ultimately, my
research is conducted to help a practitioner manager answer the following basic question.
When designing culture-sensitive HRM practices, should I assume that those who
immigrated to Canada a long time ago have been Canadianized and now have similar
values to those of the locals, and how soon should I expect the immigrants to acculturate?
To rephrase the question, the practitioner wants to know which of the immigrant cohorts,
in terms of the length of their residence in Canada, still require a culture-sensitive
approach and which ones already prefer to be treated as the locals. The practitioner’s
focus is on today. He is interested in today’s differences in values of the immigrants who
just arrived, who came a year ago, two years ago, and so on. He is not going to compare
the values of a new immigrant today and twenty years from now. A comparison of values
of different immigrant groups against each other and against the Canadian control sample
is all he is interested in and this is exactly what the quasi-longitudinal design offers. Of
course, this approach offers limited possibilities in terms of theory development and
prediction, but it seems to be perfect in terms of its abilities to give advice to a
practitioner today.
Some other advantages of the quasi-longitudinal design are the following. It is
theoretically possible that those who participated in cohort time series in earlier years will
share their knowledge about the test with the later participants, which will alter their
responses. Because the quasi-longitudinal design assumes simultaneous survey of all
80
cohorts, the problem would be less of an issue. Also, the threat due to a lack in
measurement standardization is minimal if the survey is conducted in a single short
period. Finally, the quasi-longitudinal design offers perfect flexibility in terms of forming
the cohorts representing different immigrant generations. If the originally intended oneyear interval appears suboptimal, the researcher can always regroup the responses and
form new cohorts with interval of six months, two, or three years. Technically, with a
large enough sample, the researcher can even have cohorts separated by a month in terms
of the length of residence in the host country, whereas no panel research participant will
agree to respond to a survey monthly for 25 years.
Conclusions
Based on the comparison of the pro’s and con’s of different research designs, I
conclude that the quasi-longitudinal cohort analysis is the optimal choice for my research.
Although the panel and cohort time series designs have numerous advantages over the
quasi-longitudinal approach, the latter is reasonably sound and is much more likely to be
executed with limited resources. Also, under the quasi-longitudinal design the results can
be offered rather quickly, which is especially appealing to me, given my time constrains
in the PhD program.
81
Figure 7. Possible Theorized Shapes of Acculturation Process
2. What factors affect the pace of acculturation at either level of culture?
As discussed above, culture is a multilevel construct. At the explicit level, culture
is represented by such easily observable elements as language, clothing style, music,
food, traditions and customs. At the implicit level, culture is represented by cultural
values, which are not directly observable.
Interactions with a new culture could be occurring in different life domains. For
example, van de Vijver et al. (1999) list the following settings in which one can learn
about a new culture: TV, movies, books and other printed media, work, education,
friends, and family members. In addition, information about a new culture could be
obtained through interaction with strangers on the streets or simply by passive
observation of surrounding environment.
82
Obviously, different domains are rich in different elements of culture. Information
about explicit elements of culture is readily available in most of the life domains, but only
a few of them offer information about cultural values of the host society. For example,
one can mainly obtain information about symbolic culture through movies, TV, or
passive observation of the environment. On the other hand, cultural values could be
learned only in the domains that involve deeper and more intense interactions, such as
work or education.
The frequency of interactions with the new culture at the specific cultural level
determines the pace of acculturation at this level. An extensive access to information
about external elements of the host culture would lead to the rapid acculturation at the
symbolic level. However, if one’s contact with the new culture is limited to the domains
that provide information only about external attributes of culture, one’s acculturation at
the value level is unlikely. Alternatively, if one mainly interacts with the new culture in
the domains that readily provide knowledge about cultural values but lack information
about external cultural elements, one’s acculturation at the value level is likely to be
occurring faster. For example, an international employee who teleworks over the Internet
for an overseas company, but does not have an easy access to movies, TV programs, or
cuisine of the country where the company operates in is likely to acculturate at the workrelated value level, but not at the symbolic level.
Unfortunately, it is not always easy to measure the number of interaction at each
level of culture for a given individual. Nevertheless, sufficiently accurate estimations
about the contact frequency with different elements of culture could be made based on
the information about individual’s demographic, educational and professional
83
background and lifestyle. For example, it is probably safe to assume that those who are
employed or obtaining a degree in the host country have a better access to the
information about cultural work-related values of the host society than those who are
unemployed. Figure 7 depicts all the elements of the acculturation model described
above. The model will be used to explore research question 2.
Figure 8. The Level-Specific Interaction Frequency (LSIF) Acculturation Model
As can be seen, the model assumes relative independence of the acculturation
processes at the different levels. Acculturation pace at each level is determined by the
frequency of the interactions with the level-specific elements of the culture. A number of
84
individual characteristics are used as a proxy for interaction frequencies with the host
culture at each level. The signs indicate the direction of the hypothesized effects.
Of note, such popular theorized predictor of acculturation as gender is not
included in the model for the following reason. The central element of the model is the
interaction frequency with the host culture. However, gender does not directly predict the
frequency of the interactions with the host culture and its effect is only indirect through
such factors as job status and educational background, which are included in the model.
In other words, the difference in acculturation patterns of men and women (Ataca &
Berry, 2002; Khairullah & Khairullah, 1999a; Le, 2005) are not due to the differences in
their physiology, but because of the likely differences in their professional and
educational background which affects their access to and interaction with the host
culture.
Furthermore, the model contains three moderators: age at immigration, migration
motivation, and langauge. Regarding the first one, it is assumed that there is a difference
in physiology of the youth and adults. Specifically, it is believed that brains (minds) of
younger people are more receptive of new ideas, whereas older people already have a
crystallized set of mental programs and values and are less capable of absorbing new
information.
It is also hypothesized that migration motivation will moderate the acculturation
process. Specifically, acculturation will be occurring faster for those who immigrated
voluntarily and slower for those who were forced to immigrate against their will.
Finally, ability to communicate in the language of the host country is seen as a
necessary condition for being able to access information about cultural values of the host
85
country. It is hypothesized that work-related cultural values of those with stronger
language skills will acculturate faster. No significant moderating effect of language skills
is hypothesized for acculturation at the symbolic level for language skills seem be
unnecessary to the ability to observe and absorb information about external cultural
attributes of the host society.
The Level-Specific Interaction Frequency (LSIF) Acculturation Model will be
used to explore the factors affecting the pace of acculturation at each level of culture. My
basic hypotheses are represented by the theorized directions of the effects in Figure 7.
The effects of the factors that are hypothesized to affect the pace of acculturation
will be assessed with a series of OLS regression. The measures that are assumed to be
proxy for interaction frequency with cultural elements at each level of culture (Figure 7)
will be used as the independent variables (IV), while acculturation indices will be used as
the dependent variable (DV). Alternatively, structural equation modeling (SEM) could be
used to test the model as a whole.
3. What is the relationship between acculturation patterns at the artifact and core value
levels?
Generally, a manager cannot survey an employee to assess the level of his or her
core-level cultural work-related acculturation. However, artifact-level acculturation is
easily observable through changes in such attributes of a culture as language, preferences
for music, food, media, jokes, friends, etc. The study will focus on relationship between
explicit and implicit levels of acculturation to answer the question whether observable
86
indicators of acculturation can be used to make accurate predictions about acculturation
of an individual at the core value level.
Based on the LSIF acculturation model, it is unlikely that individuals will interact
with the new culture only at one, but not on the other, level of culture. Therefore, I
hypothesize that
H3a : There will be a correlation between acculturation at the symbolic and value
levels.
However, because information about external cultural elements is readily available in
most of the life domains, while access to interactions at the value level is very limited, I
hypothesize that
H3b: Acculturation at the symbolic level will be occurring faster than
acculturation of the cultural values.
A series of correlation analyses will be conducted to study the relationship between
acculturation patterns at the artifact and core value levels. The analyses will be conducted
for each dimension separately to explore whether the acculturation patterns are the same
along different cultural dimensions. Additionally, data plots depicting the acculturation
patterns will be inspected to make inferences about relative speeds and shapes of
acculturation processes at each level of culture.
4. Are acculturation patterns the same along different cultural dimensions?
For example, based on Taras and Steel’s (2004) meta-analytic findings describing
changes in national cultures, it can be hypothesized that people may acculturate faster
along the power distance and individualism dimensions, but show resistance to change
87
their values along the masculinity and uncertainty avoidance dimensions. To address the
question, the analyses will be conducted for each cultural dimension separately.
Measure of Time
Acculturation will be measured as a change in work-related cultural values over
time. Ideally, I would like to have a longitudinal dataset containing responses from the
same individuals at different points in time from the day of their arrival and up to twenty
years of their residence in Canada. Unfortunately, this approach would require more
resources and time than are available to me to complete my PhD program.
Therefore, a quasi-longitudinal design will be used. The length (years) of
residence in Canada will be used as a measure of time. Although not perfect, this
approach can be utilized with the available resources and will allow for adequate analysis
of the change in cultural values over time. The major limitation of the approach is that it
requires participation of immigrants representing different waves of immigration. Thus,
an assumption must be made that those who immigrated to Canada twenty years ago and
those who just arrived are not different in terms of their initial cultural values. Another
challenge is related to the requirement to have a substantial number of respondents in
each year cohort, i.e. enough responses from those who just arrived, from those who
came a year ago, two years ago and so on for each time interval.
Of note, it is intended that participants of this study will be contacted several
more times annually or bi-annually and eventually a true longitudinal sample will be
formed. Although these data will not be available in the near future and could not be used
in my dissertation, I expect to continue working on the project after my graduation.
88
Measures of Individual Work-Related Cultural Values
Two criteria have been used to select a measure of cultural values for this
research. First, the instrument must be measuring individual, not societal or
organizational cultural values. For example, instruments containing items with such
wording as “in this society, people are…” or “employees of this organization tend to…”
were excluded, because they could not be used to measure individual values. Second, the
instrument must be measuring work-related values and beliefs, i.e. values that affect
human behavior in workplace-related settings. Third, the instrument must be measuring
cultural values, not personality traits or other types of values that have been formed not
as a direct result of the cultural environment.
General descriptions, dimension definitions, and original items of 63 instruments
for measuring cultural values have been found in the literature (Appendix 2). The citation
statistics revealed that several of these instruments have been especially popular and it
was expected that one of these well-known and well-validated survey tools for measuring
cultural values would be used to collect the data for this research. Several instruments
have been considered including those developed by Hofstede (1980), Schwarz (1992),
Trompenaars (1993), Maznevski and DiStephano (1995), and House at. al. (2004), a.k.a.
GLOBE team. Unfortunately, the analysis of the construct definitions, their original
items, and instrument reviews raised some concerns. For example, Hofstede’s Value
Survey Module has been dismissed due to its poor psychometric properties. The
dimensions evaluated by the Schwarz Value Survey are mainly measuring values only
remotely related to the workplace, and thus have little applicability in business research.
89
Due to the copyright restrictions, it was impossible to obtain detailed information to
properly evaluate the instrument developed by Trompenaars (1993). Furthermore, the
permission to use the instrument obtained from the authors imposed certain limitations on
how the data could be used, which did not satisfy the requirements of this study. The
model developed by Maznevski and DiStephano (1995) has been dismissed due to its
little applicability in business environment. The relevance of some of the dimensions in
the model to the workplace appears weak, while some other important dimensions are
missing in the model. Finally, the GLOBE (House et. al, 2004) questionnaire has been
designed to measure exclusively societal values and thus could not be used at the
individual level.
Therefore, I decided to develop a new questionnaire that would satisfy the criteria
specified above, i.e. the instrument will measure individual work-related cultural values.
The questionnaire development will involve two phases. Phase one is exploratory and its
purpose is to select the cultural dimensions that conform to requirements to measure
work-related and cultural values. At this stage, a number of individuals representing
different professional and demographic backgrounds will be given a list of definitions of
cultural dimensions and asked to identify (1) to what extent, in their opinion, each of
these values predicts individual behavior in the workplace and (2) how much each of
these values are affected by one’s ethnic/cultural background. A copy of the
questionnaire is in Appendix 3. Based on the results obtained at this stage, three to five
most relevant dimensions will be identified. A simple vote count will be used to identify
the dimensions that best satisfy the purpose of the study.
90
Once the dimensions representing values related to the workplace and are
determined by one’s cultural background are selected, the questionnaire will be
composed using items from the earlier developed instruments containing the
corresponding dimensions. Then, a pilot survey will be conducted to finalize the
questionnaire design. The obtained responses will be factor analyzed in conjunction with
other item selection techniques such as those described by Piazza (1980) and Taras and
Kline (2006).
Based on the responses that have been gathered up to date, the work-related
values along the following cultural dimensions are likely to be included in the final
model: Power Distance, Achievement Orientation, Gender Equality, Risk Avoidance, and
Short- vs. Long-Term Orientation.
The measures of acculturation at the symbolic level will be focused on the
elements that are easily observable or could be learned through interaction in typical
organizational settings. These will include measures of language skills, preferences for
language, clothing style, and preferences for food, media and jokes.
Acculturation Index
Value acculturation will be measured as a difference between the individual’s
cultural values and average cultural values of the control sample of host country locals
(Equation 1).
Acculturation Index = Control Sample Average Score - Individual Score
(1)
91
This way, high acculturation index represents a substantial difference in values of
the respondent and the control sample. The score is expected to diminish with
acculturation of the individual values and eventually reach zero. The acculturation index
equal to zero represents complete assimilation and is obtained when the respondent’s
score along a given cultural dimension equals to the average score of the control sample
composed of the host country nationals. A negative score represents overshooting, the
case when the immigrant respondent makes responses that are even more extreme than
the control sample average. On the contrary, if with time the acculturation index grows, it
represents cultural affirmation.
Additionally, if initial cultural values vary substantially across ethnic groups, it
may be necessary to standardize the scores to mean of zero and standard deviation of one
within each group. This will allow isolating out the between-group differences.
Alternatively, the analyses could be run for each ethnic group separately, though this
option is very sensitive to data availability.
Two different scores will be derived to represent acculturation at the symbolic and
value levels of culture. The scores will be calculated using the same basic equation (1),
but different survey items will be used to obtain the initial responses.
Sample
People currently residing in Canada (host country) but born outside the country
will be surveyed to collect the data. An additional sample of people born in Canada (host
country nationals) will be used as a control group for testing the direction of
acculturation.
92
The data will be collected through various channels. First, the research project
was presented to a group of managers representing fifty Calgary-based private and public
organizations at the Canadian Human Resource Planners (CHRP) meeting. Very
favorable comments were received from participant of the meeting and five organizations
have already expressed their strong interest in participating in the study and promised to
provide support with data collection. All fifty managers were given handouts with the
description of the project and contacts of the authors of the project and an additional
reminder will be sent out via CHRP mailing list. It is expected than more organizations
will participate in the project.
Second, several Calgary-based non-profit organizations providing settlement and
integration services to immigrants in Calgary were contacted and offered to participate in
the project. The Calgary Mennonite Centre for Newcomers and the Calgary Multicultural
Resource Centre have expressed their strong interest in the study and offered their help
with data collection. The Calgary Catholic Immigration Society is also expected to join
the project.
Third, ethnic community centers will be used to access immigrants living in
Calgary. So far, cooperation agreements have been reached with leaders of Ukrainian and
Iranian communities. Due to the complicated hierarchy of Chinese and East-Indian ethnic
associations, I am still waiting for formal confirmation of agreement with these
communities. In addition, a couple of ethnic food stores, which are frequently visited by
most of immigrants and can be described as mini ethnic centers, were contacted to
explore the possibilities of cooperation. I was offered the use of their internal bulletin
boards for announcements about the research project and to leave questionnaires in the
93
stores for pick up by potential respondents as long as we provide pre-addressed and
stamped return-mail envelopes.
Fourth, University of Calgary International Student Centre and Calgary Chinese
Students & Scholars Association expressed their interest in the study and offered support
with data collection. We are now exploring now possibilities to involve into the research
project International Student Centers at other universities located in Western Canada.
Lastly, flyers with information about the research project and contacts will be put
on bulletin boards throughout UofC, SAIT, ACAD, and MRC campuses.
I am exploring the possibility of using a lottery to encourage participation. This
approach has been approved by the ethics committee. It will be announced that three
participants will be randomly selected from the final pool and awarded prizes.
Participation in the lottery will be optional. For the cultural-sensitivity reasons, the
winners will be offered a choice from three forms of $100-worth rewards: a bouquet of
flowers delivered worldwide within reason ($100 flowers plus delivery), a $100 donation
to a charity of respondent’s choice, or cash. The issues of privacy protection will be
handled in accordance with the research ethics committee requirements (optional
participation, respondents’ consent, storing data separately from identification lists, etc).
It is expected that the sample size will substantially exceed the minimum required
sample size. Various sources report different numbers, but it is usually agreed that it is
necessary to have at least twenty cases per each independent variable (IV) to carry out
proper statistical analysis. Given that there will be not more than ten IV, the minimum
required sample size is about 200. Even the most pessimistic expectation about our
sample size will satisfy the requirement (Appendix 4).
94
Limitations
This research project is expected to substantially advance our knowledge about
acculturation processes. Nevertheless, the results obtained using the proposed research
design and sample will be subject to certain limitations. First of all, the research design is
not longitudinal. Although it is expected that eventually the respondents will be surveyed
multiple times, within the frames of this dissertation research project the analyses will be
based on a survey conducted in a single time period. Therefore, the conclusions about the
acculturative changes should be treated with caution.
Second, the sample that will be used to collect the data for this research project
will provide truncated data that will not allow for testing some relevant hypotheses. It is
expected that the majority of surveyed immigrants will have come voluntarily to Canada.
Thus, the sample will not provide enough variation within the Migration Motivation
(high/low) variable, which will make it impossible to test the effect of this moderator.
Furthermore, due the limitations imposed by the sample characteristics, effects of
some other potentially relevant variables cannot be tested. For example, some scholars
pointed out that acculturation patterns may differ depending on whether the culture of the
host society is tight or loose (Hom, 1996; Murphy & Anderson, 2003). In tight cultures,
such as Japanese, there tend to be numerous formal and informal rules that regulate every
aspect of life. On the contrary, in loose cultures many aspects of life are largely
unregulated and various behaviors are acceptable in certain situations. It has been argued
that individuals tend to acculturate faster to loose cultures than to the opposite. Because
95
my research design is limited to a single country, no inferences about the above stated
issue could be made.
Third, by definition, acculturation is an exchange of values. As pointed out,
acculturation is a two-way process that affects both groups: immigrants and the locals.
Therefore, at least in theory, in the process of acculturation not only the minority groups
adjust their values towards those of the majority, but also the majority acculturates
towards the minority. Although acculturation of the minorities towards the dominant
group’s values is likely to be occurring faster than vise versa, the minority’s influence on
the “old” ethnic group may be substantial. This aspect is ignored in my research design
by assuming a relative stability of the values of the control sample (host country
nationals). It is expected, however, that no substantial cultural shifts can occur in the
national culture of the host country and thus this limitation will not dramatically distort
my findings.
Future Research
This research project could be used as the basis for further research on workrelated acculturation. First of all, the participants of the study could be contacted and the
survey could be conducted several more times to collect longitudinal data allowing for
the time-series research design. This approach would allow for a more rigorous analysis
of change in cultural values. The insights and the data generated during the research
project could also be used to address the following questions.
What are the differences in are acculturation patterns of expatiates (temporary
residents in the host country) and immigrants (permanent residents in the host country)?
96
It can be hypothesized that immigrants intending to spend the rest of their lives in their
host countries are more inclined to acculturate than expatriates, who know that sooner or
later they will be going back to their home countries.
What are the effects of characteristics of the cultural environment on
acculturation patterns? It can be hypothesized that not only individual characteristics
affect acculturation patterns, but also characteristics of the new cultural environment
(country, organization) the individual is exposed to. For example, it can be hypothesized
that immigrants are more likely to absorb cultural values of countries that are perceived
as more prestigious than their home countries and less likely to assimilate with cultures of
less technologically advanced countries.
What are the patterns of re-acculturation? The focus of the study will be on
repatriates. When coming back after being exposed to a foreign environment for an
extended period of time (after being acculturated), do individuals re-acculturate and, if
so, what are the patterns of re-acculturation? How fast and to what extent? Is reacculturation unidirectional or multidirectional?
The following sections will discuss each of these questions in detail.
Expatriate vs. Immigrant Acculturation
What are the differences in acculturation patterns for those individuals who are
planning to stay in a new country (immigrants) versus those staying for a fixed period of
time? This is a very important question. In our age of globalization, millions of business
expatriates, foreign short-term employees, and international students worldwide live
overseas for a fixed period of time and comprise an important part of their host societies.
97
Billions of dollars are spent on their relocation and accommodation, yet little is known
about the longitudinal effects of the new cultural environment on their values and
attitudes.
When working on my dissertation proposal, I have reviewed a substantial body of
literature on acculturation and have run across a number of theories that explain and
predict acculturative changes that individuals are likely to experience as they are
immersed in a new cultural environment. Unfortunately, the focus of the research on
acculturation has been limited to “common” immigrants and virtually no studies looked
at expatriates. One of the reasons for this exclusion could be the fact that acculturation
has been largely overseen by management scholars and most of the research in this area
has been conducted by psychologists and sociologists.
It must be noted that the term “acculturation” has been frequently used in the
business expatriation literature (e.g., Atiyyah, 1996b; Mendenhall & Oddou, 1985b;
Selvarajah, 1998; Selvarajah & Russell, 1998b). However, here the term usually stands
for “adaptation”, “adjustment” and “ability to cope”. In most of the cases, research on
expatriate acculturation has been concerned with minimizing the negative effects of stress
due to relocation, differences in cuisine, languages, traditions, the way people spend their
free time, etc. The rare studies that explored cultural differences mainly dealt with an
expatriate’s ability to remain an effective manager and a productive member of the
organization when functioning in a new culture and possibly experiencing “cultural
shock” (e.g., Bauer & Taylor, 2001; Selvarajah & Russell, 1998b; Volard, Francis, &
Wagner, 1988). Even though some conclusions about expatriate acculturation at the
98
external artifact level could be made based on the existing expatriation literature, the
change in expat’s cultural values has not been the focus of the research.
I will base my analysis of probable differences in acculturation patterns for
immigrants versus expatriates on the Level-Specific Interaction Frequency (LSIF)
acculturation model described in my dissertation proposal. The Social Network and the
National Superiority theories will also be used to further substantiate my predictions. My
line of reasoning will be based on the following arguments. The process of acculturation
is affected by one’s personal characteristics, characteristics of the new environment and
reasons for one’s relocation. Expatriates and immigrants are likely to differ in terms of
demographics, their relocation purposes, and micro-environments in which they live in a
new society. Therefore, I would assume that acculturation patterns for immigrants and
expatriates are different. My answer will contain detailed explanations of how the
differences are likely to impact the acculturation process.
The Level-Specific Interaction Frequency Acculturation Model
As described in my dissertation research proposal, the key element of the LevelSpecific Interaction Frequency (LSIF) theory of acculturation is the frequency of
interaction with new cultural environment. The model differentiates between
acculturation at the external and internal levels. Acculturative changes at the external
level correspond to a shift in preferences for language, clothing style, cuisine, media, and
other easily observable attributes of culture. Internal acculturation refers to the change in
cultural values that could not be directly observed.
99
The LSIF model is based on the assumption that different domains of life contain
information about different types of attributes (internal/external) of culture. Thus,
acculturative changes at different levels will depend on the frequency of interaction with
the new society in different domains. In addition, the model assumes that the
acculturation process will be moderated by one’s age, motivation for migration, and
language skills. By analyzing the probable differences in the factors that predict
interaction with the host society in different domains of life, I will draw conclusions
about likely differences in acculturation patterns of immigrants versus expatriates.
Social Network Theory
Barnes (1954) is credited with coining the notion of social networks. The network
analysis, a.k.a. Social Network Theory, is the study of how the social structure of
relationships around a person, group, or organization affects beliefs or behaviors.
Network size and density, depth of relationshop, and contact quality are the basic
characteristics of a social network.
Several recent studies used network analysis to explain expatriate adaptation (Liu &
Shaffer, 2005; Xiaoyun Wang, 2002; X Wang & Kanungo, 2004). It has been found that
characteristics of an expatriate’s social network had a significant effect on his or her
adaptation to a new culture. Due to a number of reasons, social networks of immigrants
and expatriates are likely to differ. I will explore how these probable social network
differences can impact acculturation patterns of immigrants versus expatriates.
National Superiority Theory
100
The National Superiority theory is based on the assumption that different nations or
ethnic groups are ascribed different status. This is believed to have an impact on how
individuals representing these different nations or ethnic groups structure their
interactions (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Turda, 2004). According to
Sidanius and Pratto (1999), inequality among social groups exists because there is a
fundamental predisposition of human beings to create and maintain a social organization
based on hierarchy of groups. The perceived status inequalities across nations and ethnic
groups can usually be explained by colonial past as well as by differences in current
economic power of nations. One of the earlier examples could be the Roman Empire that
ruled a substantial part of the world two thousand years ago. In the territories controlled
by the Romans, Roman citizens enjoyed more legal rights and were perceived as superior
to representatives of the colonies. Later, the British took over and colonized most of
Africa and parts of Asia where the locals were treated much differently than the settlers
from the Great Britain. Today, the laws of most countries do not formally discriminate
based on nationality, though there are quite a few exceptions such as immigration and
visa regulations that explicitly discriminate based on citizenship. Differences in economic
status between nations or ethnic groups can also determine perceived status. For example,
there is a clear hierarchy in the perceived status of Eastern versus Western Europeans in
the recently expanded European Union. Similarly, immigrants from Mexico in the United
States are likely to be treated somewhat differently than immigrants from Western
Europe.
The National Superiority theory predicts that because is it in human nature to desire
to be on the top of the hierarchy the cultures of the nations that are ascribed a higher
101
status will be perceived as more desirable and worth imitating. This explains why French
(or English today) used to be the most popular language in the world and aristocracies in
many countries far away form France used French in their everyday communication. For
the same reason, a European missionary in Africa rarely attempts to learn the local
language and instead actively promotes his own tongue. This behavior is also usually
welcomed by the locals who are eager to learn the language of the higher “cast”. The
differences in acculturation patterns of expatriates and immigrant can be partly explained
by the fact that the former typically migrate from high to low-status countries, while the
latter usually head in the opposite direction. I will use the theory to support some of my
arguments and make predictions about acculturation patterns of immigrants versus
expatriates.
The Combined Model
Figure 1 depicts the combined model of acculturation for comparison of
acculturation patterns for immigrants versus expatriates. The LSIF framework is at the
core of the model. Social network characteristics and perceived national superiority have
been added to the model as additional factors that have an impact on the acculturation
process. Specifically, it is assumed that social network characteristics have an impact on
the interaction frequency with the new cultural environment in different domains. Also,
perceptions about national status hierarchy are expected to moderate the effects of the
interaction frequency on acculturation. A detailed discussion of each of the components
of the model follows.
Figure 1. The Acculturation Model
102
Differences in Characteristics of Immigrants and Expatriates: Consequences
for the Acculturation Process
My analysis will be based on a comparison of characteristics of typical immigrants
versus typical expatriates. Of course, there is no such thing as an “average” immigrant or
expatriate and there are always exceptions, but it would probably be reasonable to assume
that these two categories of migrants differ in terms of the following.
Time Spent in the Foreign Country
By definition, an expatriate visits a foreign country only for a short period of time,
typically for several months to one or two years. An immigrant, on the other hand, stays
103
in the host country permanently. Thus, an expatriate spends a significantly shorter time in
the new country, which limits the duration of his interaction with the new culture.
Holding other factors constant, my model predicts that immigrants would be expected to
acculturate more because they are exposed to a new environment for a longer period of
time.
Reason for Migration and the Selection Bias
There are fundamental differences in the reasons for which immigrants and
expatriates leave their home countries and go overseas. Even though exceptions are
probable, one usually immigrates to a different country in a search for a better life.
Dissatisfaction with the current country of residence due to economic or political reasons
is the primery cause for immigration. The selection of the new home country is a lengthy
and careful process and it is probably safe to assume that at least initially the new society
looms attractive to an immigrant. The overwhelming need for change that forces an
immigrant away from his or her home is likely to relate to openness to new experiences
and readiness to embrace the new host culture.
On the other hand, an expatriate is usually a representative of a company.
According to multiple typologies of reasons for expatriations (e.g., Edstrom & Galbraith,
1977; A. W. K. Harzing, 2001), organizational development and position filling are the
most common grounds for an international assignment. Expatriate functions usually
relate to direct control and so-called indirect control by socialization, dissemination of
organization-specific knowledge and organizational culture to overseas subsidiaries and
partners. Because an expatriate is expected to be a role model and disseminate the “right”
104
values, usually the primery selection criterion for an international assignment is a
demonstration of deep knowledge of and a strong commitment to the way the
organizations conducts its business. As noted by Welch et. al. (1994), it is not in an
organization’s interest that their expatriates “go native” and lose ties with the
organizational culture of the headquarters. Therefore, an expatriate assignment is usually
limited to a short period of time and the company my use home visits as a way of giving
an expatriate a “culture fix” (p. 485). Due to selection bias, compared to an immigrant, an
expatriate is less likely to acculturate. Furthermore, if an expatriate embraces the foreign
work culture too much, his or her international assignment may be terminated.
Some exceptions must be noted. Although rare, a company representative may be
expatriated to a foreign country for what is called in some typologies management
development purposes (Edstrom & Galbraith, 1977; A. W. K. Harzing, 2001) . In this
case, the expat’s assignment would be to learn the way “business is done over there”.
Consequently, openness to new experiences and readiness to learn and absorb a new
work culture is likely to be a factor in the selection process. In contrast to “typical”
expatriates, management development expatriates are more likely to change their values
and habits as a result of their work overseas.
International students are also short-time visitors in foreign countries. Their reason
for relocation and self-selection criteria make them similar to management development
expatriates. Thus, they are much more likely to acculturate compared to usual
organizational development or position filling business expatriates.
On the other hand, exceptions are also possible among immigrants. Not all of them
willingly leave their home countries and head to countries of their dreams. Some of them
105
may be forced to hide overseas, others my have no other choice but to follow their family
members who decided to move across the border. Consequently, the new culture may not
appear that attractive to them and their openness to experiences may be negative. This
can slow down their acculturation or even cause a reverse acculturation process called
cultural affirmation (Berry, 1988).
Social Network Characteristics
Social networks of expatriates are likely to be substantially different from those of
immigrants. As a result, the interaction frequency with the new cultural environment, as
well as the domains in which those interactions are occurring, is likely to differ. Based on
the LSIF model, this would lead to differences in acculturation patterns.
An expatriate is usually bound to a single organization. Most of the people he or she
will associate with will be members of this organization. Frequently, when several
expatriates from the same country work in the same organization or are stationed in the
same town, they tend to form close communities and spend most of their time together.
Because of their distinct shared background, similar socio-economic status and shared
interests, they may prefer socializing with their peers and would rarely communicate with
the external world.
The isolation may be even stronger due to possible legal restrictions that indirectly
prevent an expatriate from expanding his or her network. For example, an expatriate is
usually not allowed to work outside his or her assignment organization. Similarly, an
international student cannot seek employment off-campus and frequently even oncampus work is prohibited.
106
Moreover, an expatriate’s relocation and accommodation is usually handled by the
host organization and his or her salary also comes from the parent organization in the
home country. Consequently, an expatriate’s contact with the local authorities and
institutions are very limited. In addition, the host organization is likely to provide leisure
opportunities leaving little need for expats to communicate with the external world and
expand their social networks.
Finally, because expatriates usually assume managerial positions, it may be
perceived as inappropriate for them to have close relationships with their local
subordinates outside the work. This is also true for foreign short-term entry-level
employees and foreign students. For example, foreigners working in the Arab states, such
as Kuwait, usually assume lower positions and do not get to associate with their local
supervisors outside work. Also, they cannot easily change organizations due to the work
permit regulations (Atiyyah, 1996b). This limits their contact with the locals and puts
indirect restrictions on the size of their social networks.
Compared to expatriates, immigrants are much more flexible in terms of their
employment choices. In their search for a better position, they may move from one
organization to another quite frequently. Moreover, their regular contacts with the local
authorities, immigrant settlement non-profit organizations and institutions are necessary.
Even if an immigrant lives in an ethnic community, his or her contacts with the external
world are inevitable. As a result, an immigrant’s social network, willingly or unwillingly,
is likely to be much larger than that of an expatriate’s.
Immigrants are also likely to differ from expatriates in terms of their social network
density and the depth of relationship. Because expatriates come to a foreign country only
107
for a fixed period of time, compared to permanent immigrants, they are less inclined to
form long-term close personal relations with the locals. Most importantly, however, longterm relations require a mutual adjustment of personal values and attitudes. Compared to
expatriates, who do not feel the urge to build ties with the locals, immigrants have to
compromise and adapt their value system to those of local, because they have no other
choice but to fit in. Unlike the case of expatriates, if something goes wrong going back
home may not be an option for immigrants. As a result, acculturation extent is going to be
much larger for immigrants.
Family Issues
It has been well documented that expatriate adjustment is greatly affected by the
adjustment of his or her family members (Bauer & Taylor, 2001; Black, Mendenhall, &
Oddou, 1991). It is possible that an expatriate will bring along his family, but in many
cases, the family members choose to stay home. Even if they come along, due to legal
restrictions and personal preferences, expatriate spouses tend to have a limited number of
contacts with the locals and instead spend most of their time in isolated expatriate
communities. Also, if there is a possibly, expatriates prefer to send their kids to
international local schools so that they can continue studying in their native language and
will not have problems in school upon repatriation.
On the other hand, chances are an immigrant comes to the new country with his or
her family. Unlike those of an expatriate, each of the members of an immigrant family
has to interact with and be an active member of the host society. The older family
members are likely to seek employment, as well as to have regular contacts with local
108
institutions and organizations, while children will have to attend a local daycare, school
or college. As a result, the self-reinforcing acculturation mechanism is possible when
family members absorb information about the new environment and share it with each
other. Also, family members may be seen as an opportunity or even a necessity to expand
the social network and enhance interactive experience with the new world. For example,
having their kids in a local school will force the parents to contact school employees and
other parents and learn how the education system of the host society works. This would
increase the interaction frequency with the local culture and speed up the acculturation
process.
The Interaction Domains
Due to the differences in social network characteristics, immigrants and expatriates
are likely to interact with the local environment in different domains. Representatives of
both groups are likely to have about equal access to most of the domains that provide
information about external attributes of cultures such as clothing style, music, jokes,
food, etc (see Figure 1). For example, there is no reason to believe that expatriates will
differ from immigrants in terms of their access to the local media, streets or malls. As
both groups are subjected to approximately the same amount of information about
external culture of the host society, I would expect that they would display similar
acculturation patterns at the external level, holding other factors constant.
On the other hand, there are likely to be substantial differences in terms of access to
the domains that provide information about internal cultural attributes. While expatriates
will learn about cultural values and attitudes of the host society primarily at work, the list
109
of the sources of information about external culture will be much broader for immigrants
who are also likely to receive education in the host country, have local friends, marry a
local persona, and participate in local club and religious meetings. Therefore, I would
hypothesize that the extent of acculturation at the internal level will be much greater for
immigrants compared to expatriates, holding other variables constant.
Language
Based on the LSIF model, language skills have a positive strengthening effect on
acculturation. Language is one of the most important attributes of culture. Information
about cultural values is overtly and covertly encoded in language and one can fully
understand a society’s culture only if one learns the society’s language. The time
expatriates spend in the host country is normally too short to learn a new language and
thus their ability to comprehend the host culture may be limited. Furthermore, the
common use of English as the language of business makes it unnecessary for business
expatriates to learn the language of the host country.
In contrast, learning the local language is a must for an immigrant. Because the
immigration application process is quite lengthy and may take several years, an
immigrant normally starts leaning the language long before he or she actually steps on the
foreign ground. In fact, many countries like Canada or Germany use verbal skills as an
immigrant selection criterion ensuring that newcomers have a strong command of the
host society language. Compared to expatriates, immigrants communicate in the foreign
language more frequently and on more topics, and master it more quickly. Probable
differences in local language skills are likely to widen the gap between the acculturation
110
patterns of immigrants and expatriates. Chances are, immigrants will be more fluent in
the local language and therefore will acculturate more.
The Migration Direction and Status
As was mentioned before, immigrants usually move from less developed countries
to more developed ones. The migration direction for expatriates is typically reversed.
Although international students and short-term entry level foreign employees may be an
exception, the classic expatriation example is a relocation of a manager or a professional
from a rich, technologically advanced country to a less developed country to manage a
foreign subsidiary, be a technical expert, or to train local staff.
From the National Superiority theory perspective, given the migration direction, an
immigrant is likely to be ascribed a lower status, while an expatriate is typically treated as
a representative of a higher society. Consequently, an immigrant is likely to attempt to
imitate the culture of the locals to improve his or her perceived status. On the other hand,
a high-status expatriate would tend to maintain his or her original culture as a way to
point out his or her higher status. By showing off his “superior” culture, an expatriate
sends a signal about his or her higher status. Actually, an expatriate may loose credibility
by becoming “too native”.
At the same time, the local subordinates are likely to be willing to mimic the
expat’s behavior to improve their perceived status and simply because the expat is the
boss. The role model position would leave an expatriate with even fewer opportunities to
learn the local culture.
111
Flexibility and Attractiveness of the Host Country
An expatriate’s inflexibility in terms of choosing the employer and the area of
residence in the host country has been discussed in relation to limited social network
expansion possibilities. Being tight to a single organization and a small circle of people
may lead to dissatisfaction with the experiences in the host country. If something goes
wrong or not as expected, an expatriate cannot easily change his or her micro
environment and try again. For example, an expatriate may be stuck in a small town
where his or her company happened to build a factory due to low labor cost, but where
there is a lack of leisure and socializing opportunities (see examples from Sappinen,
1993). The mounting dissatisfaction with the organization/location may be transferred
into other areas of life, eventually leading to overall negative perceptions about
experiences in the host country. As a result, the new culture may appear less attractive to
the expatriate, which will slow the acculturation process or even cause cultural
affirmation.
In contrast, immigrants are free to change their employer and area of residence if
they feel a different option would be a better fit. If anything goes wrong, an immigrant
can try alternative options, which could help relieve tension and stress. The ability to
choose would improve overall experiences and perceptions about the host society and and
make its culture appear more positive. As a result, perceived attractiveness of the host
society culture would be associated with faster acculturation.
On the other hand, an expatriate is more of a tourist or a “greenhouse resident” in
the host country. He or she hardly ever has to deal with the local authorities. An expat is
relatively financially independent and chances are he or she will not have to experience
112
“the darker side” of the local bureaucratic system. In contrast, an immigrant is not
protected from negative experiences in the new country. If anything goes badly, he is on
his own. Possible poverty or legal problems can make an immigrant’s life hell, which can
lead to hatred of everything representing the host society, including its culture.
Obviously, this would have a negative impact on the acculturation process.
Furthermore, an expatriate usually moves from a cozy and safe environment of his
or her home country to a less comfortable and secure environment in the host country. He
or she may experience problems with basic conditions, clean drinking water or safe
transportation. These little inconveniences can have a negative impact on the expat’s
perception about the host country and lower the perceived attractive of its culture.
Consequently, acculturation process would be slower. In contrast, an immigrant is likely
to move to a safer and more comfortable environment compared to that of his home
country. Such factors as well-developed public transportation, variety of products in the
stores, clean streets, and a sense of freedom all can be a pleasant surprise for the new
immigrant. As a result, his or her attitudes to the host society in general may be positively
biased, leading to a higher perceived attractive of the host culture and a greater
willingness to become a part of it.
Sensemaking and Mindset for Adaptation
It would also be interesting to look at the acculturation differences of expatriates
versus immigrant through the lens of the Sensemaking theory (Glanz, Williams, &
Hoeksema, 2001; Louis, 1980). According to Louis (1980), individuals are more willing
and likely to experience a change in their attitudes at the times when they experience
113
formal role changes. For example, an individual who has just received a new job or has
been promoted to a new position would be prompt to adjust his or her value system and
attitudes. The larger the formal role change, the higher the likelihood of a change in
values.
Both expatriation and immigration assumes a significant change in one’s life,
making both categories of migrants susceptible to experiencing a change in their values
and attitudes. However, expatriation is usually associated only with what Glanz et. al.
(2001) call intra-organizational role change. The role change experienced by an
immigrant is much more profound. As a result, an immigrant’s mindset is more open for
value adjustment making acculturation more likely.
Conclusions
The acculturation process has been found to be affected by one’s personal
characteristics, by the characteristics of the new micro-environment one is introduced to,
and by the reasons for relocation. Although it may not be obvious at first glance, a
“typical” immigrant differs substantially from a “typical” expatriate. In most cases,
experiences of immigrants and expatriates in the host country would not be alike.
Although exceptions are possible, the purpose of expatriate versus immigrant relocation
is profoundly different. The social networks of immigrants and expatriates are likely to
differ in terms their size, density and types of contacts. Due to the differences in their
perceived status, immigrants and expatriates are likely to experience different attitudes
from the locals. Differences in micro-environments and experiences may lead to different
perceptions about attractiveness of the host culture. The probable differences in the local
114
language proficiency can also have an impact on interaction with the host society culture
for immigrants versus expatriates. As a result, acculturation pattern of immigrants are
likely to differ substantially from those of expatriates. In most cases, I would expect that
immigrants would acculturate more, especially at the internal value level.
115
Appendix 1. List of Acculturation Measurement Instruments
1. Anderson, J., Moeschberger, M., Chen, M. S., Kunn, P., & et al. (1993). An
acculturation scale for Southeast Asians. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 28(3), 134-141.
2. Barona, A., & Miller, J. A. (1994). Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanic Youth
(SASH-Y): A preliminary report. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16(2),
155-162.
3. Barry, D. T. (2001). Development of a New Scale for Measuring Acculturation: The
East Asian Acculturation Measure (EAAM). Journal of Immigrant Health, 3(4), 193205.
4. Bautista, D. R. (2004). Da kine scale: Construction and validation of the Hawaii
Local Acculturation Scale. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities & Social Sciences, 64(7-A), 2658.
5. Birman, D., & Trickett, E. J. (2001). CULTURAL TRANSITIONS IN FIRSTGENERATION IMMIGRANTS: Acculturation of Soviet Jewish refugee adolescents
and parents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 456-477.
6. Birman, D., Trickett, E. J., & Vinokurov, A. (2002). Acculturation and adaptation of
Soviet Jewish refugee adolescents: Predictors of adjustment across life domains.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(5), 585-607.
7. Cheng, A. T. A., & Hsu, M. (1996). Development of a new scale for measuring
acculturation: The Taiwan Aboriginal Acculturation Scale (TAAS). Psychological
Medicine, 25(6), 1281-1287.
116
8. Cortes, D. E., Rogler, L. H., & Malgady, R. G. (1994). Biculturality among Puerto
Rican adults in the United States. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22(5),
707-721.
9. Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for
Mexican Americans-II: A revisiion of the original ARSMA Scale. Hispanic Journal
of Behavioral Sciences, 17(3), 275-304.
10. Cuellar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican
American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,
2(3), 199-217.
11. Felix-Ortiz, M., Newcomb, M. D., & Myers, H. (1994). A multidimensional measure
of cultural identity for Latino and Latina adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences Vol 16(2) May 1994, 99-115.
12. Franco, J. N. (1983). An acculturation scale for Mexican-American children. Journal
of General Psychology, 108(2), 175-181.
13. Garrett, M. T., & Pichette, E. F. (2000). Red as an apple: Native American
acculturation and counseling with or without reservation. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 78(1), 3-13.
14. Gim Chung, R. H., Kim, B. S. K., & Abreu, J. M. (2004). Asian American
Multidimensional Acculturation Scale: Development, Factor Analysis, Reliability,
and Validity. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(1), 66-80.
15. Harris, A. C., & Verven, R. (1996). The Greek-American Acculturation Scale:
Development and validity. Psychological Reports, 78(2), 599-610.
117
16. Kim, B. S. K., Atkinson, D. R., & Yang, P. H. (1999). The Asian Values Scale:
Development, factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 46(3), 342-352.
17. Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (2000). Revising and improving the African American
Acculturation Scale. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(2), 235-261.
18. Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1994). The African American Acculturation Scale:
Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Black Psychology, 20(2), 104-127.
19. Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1995). The African American Acculturation Scale II:
Cross-validation and short form. Journal of Black Psychology, 21(2), 124-152.
20. Laroche, M., Kim, C., Hui, M. K., & Joy, A. (1996). An empirical study of
multidimensional ethnic change: The case of the French Canadians in Quebec.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Vol 27(1) Jan 1996, 114-131.
21. Levenson, R. W. (1994). General Ethnicity Questionnaire. Berkeley: University of
California, Department of Psychology.
22. Lim, K. V., Heiby, E., Brislin, R., & Griffin, B. (2002). The development of the
Khmer acculturation scale. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(6),
653-678.
23. Marin, G., & Gamba, R. J. (1996). A new measurement of acculturation for
Hispanics: The Bidimensional Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (BAS). Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(3), 297-316.
24. Marin, G., Sabogal, F., Marin, B. V., Otero-Sabogal, R., & et al. (1987).
Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 183-205.
118
25. Martinez, R., Norman, R. D., & Delaney, H. D. (1984). A Children's Hispanic
Background Scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 6(2), 103-112.
26. Mavreas, V., Bebbington, P., & Der, G. (1989). The structure and validity of
acculturation: Analysis of an acculturation scale. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 24(5), 233-240.
27. Mendoza, R. H. (1989). An empirical scale to measure type and degree of
acculturation in Mexican-American adolescents and adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 20(4), 372-385.
28. Mojica, Y. R. (1992). Acculturation of limited English-speaking and bilingual
Mexican-American high school students: A validation of the Dual Acculturation
Scale--Spanish Version. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(3-A), 759.
29. Nguyen, H. H., & von Eye, A. (2002). The Acculturation Scale for Vietnamese
Adolescents (ASVA): A bidimensional perspective. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 26(3), 202-213.
30. Norris, A. E., Ford, K., & Bova, C. A. (1996). Psychometrics of a brief acculturation
scale for Hispanics in a probability sample of urban Hispanic adolescents and young
adults. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(1), 29-38.
31. Ramirez, A. G., Cousins, J. H., Santos, Y., & Supik, J. D. (1986). A media-based
acculturation scale for Mexican-Americans: Application to public health education
programs. Family & Community Health, 9(3), 63-71.
32. Ramirez, M. (1983). Psychology of the Americans: Mestizo Perspectives on
Personality and Mental Health. New York, NY: Pergamon.
119
33. Rezentes, W. C. (1993). Na Mea Hawai'i: A Hawaiian acculturation scale.
Psychological Reports, 73(2), 383-393.
34. Rosenthal, D. A., Bell, R., Demetriou, A., & Efklides, A. (1989). From collectivism
to individualism? The acculturation of Greek immigrants in Australia. International
Journal of Psychology, 24(1), 57-71.
35. Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional
or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, selfidentity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 49-65.
36. Saiz, J. L., Cornejo, A., Fuchslocher, V., Holzapfel, J. I., & Scheel, M. (1998). The
Mapuche Acculturation Scale: Differentiating the direction of acculturation in
Chilean Indians. Revista de Psicologia Social y Personalidad, 14(1), 15-28.
37. Serrano, E., & Anderson, J. (2003). Assessment of a refined short acculturation scale
for Latino preteens in rural Colorado. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,
25(2), 240-253.
38. Slodzinski, M. T. D. P. (1994). An acculturation scale for Asians in the United States.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 55(3B), 1194.
39. Snowden, L. R., & Hines, A. M. (1999). A scale to assess African American
acculturation. Journal of Black Psychology, 25(1), 36-47.
40. Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup
Acculturation Scale (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 77-88.
120
41. Suinn, R. M., Rickard-Figueroa, K., Lew, S., & Vigil, P. (1987). The Suinn-Lew
Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale: An initial report. Educational &
Psychological Measurement, 47(2), 401-407.
42. Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W. M., & Fernandez, T. (1980). Bicultural involvement and
adjustment in Hispanic-American youths. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 4, 353-365.
43. Szapocznik, J., Scopetta, M. A., Kurtines, W., & Aranalde, M. D. (1978). Theory and
measurement of acculturation. Revista Interamericana de Psicologia, 12(2), 113-130.
44. Triandis, H. C., Kashima, Y., Shimada, E., & Villareal, M. (1986). Acculturation
indices as a means of confirming cultural differences. International Journal of
Psychology, 21(1), 43-70.
45. Tropp, L. R., Erkut, S., Coll, C. G., Alarcon, O., & Garcia, H. A. V. (1999).
Psychological acculturation: Development of a new measure for Puerto Ricans on the
US mainland. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 351-367.
46. Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y.-W., & Lee, P. A. (2000). The meaning of "being Chinese" and
"being American: Variation among Chinese American young adults." Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 302-332.
47. Unger, J. B., Gallaher, P., Shakib, S., Ritt-Olson, A., Palmer, P. H., & Johnson, C.
(2002). The AHIMSA Acculturation Scale: A new measure of acculturation for
adolescents in a multicultural society. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22(3), 225-251.
48. Wolfe, M. M., Yang, P. H., Wong, E. C., & Atkinson, D. R. (2001). Design and
development of the European American values scale for Asian Americans. Cultural
Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(3), 274-283.
121
49. Zea, M. C., Asner-Self, K. K., Birman, D., & Buki, L. P. (2003). The Abbreviated
Multidimentional Acculturation Scale: Empirical validation with two Latino/Latina
samples. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(2), 107-126.
122
Appendix 2. List of Publications Describing Original Instruments for Measuring
Cultural Values
1. Ali, A. (1987). Scaling an Islamic work ethic. Journal of Social Psychology, 128(5),
575-583.
2. Avsec, A. (2003). Masculinity and Femininity Personality Traits and Self-Construal.
Studia Psychologica, 45(2), 151-159.
3. Baird, I. S., Lyles, M. A., & Wharton, R. (1990). Attitudinal differences between
American and Chinese managers regarding joint venture management. Management
International Review, 30 (special issue), 53-68.
4. Bierbrauer, G., Meyer, H., & Wolfradt, U. (1994). Measurement of normative and
evaluative aspects in individualistic 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). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
5. Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and
job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 25, 233-257.
6. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K.-K., De Carrasquel, S. R., Murakami, F., et
al. (2004). Culture-Level Dimensions of Social Axioms and Their Correlates Across
41 Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Vol 35(5) Sep 2004, 548-570.
7. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z.
X., et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on
reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 300-315.
123
8. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of
Personality, 30, 29-50.
9. Chew, K. H. (1996). Beyond individualism-collectivism: Additional constructs to
consider. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, WA, US.
10. Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese Values and the Search for Culture-Free
Dimensions of Culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2), 143-164.
11. Christie, R. (1968). Machiavellianism scale. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes (pp. 590-603). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute
for Social Research, University of Michigan.
12. Clark, M. S., Oullette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipient's mood,
relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1),
94-103.
13. Cloetta, B. (1983). The questionnaire for measuring Machiavellianism and
conservatism MK. Psychologie - Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Psychologie und ihre
Anwendungen, 42(2-3), 127-159.
14. Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). The relational-interdependent
self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4),
791-808.
15. Denny, R. M., & Sunderland, P. L. (2005). Researching cultural metaphors in action:
metaphors of computing technology in contemporary U.S. life. Journal of Business
Research, 58(10), 1456.
16. Dorfman, P., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective
leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In R. N. Farmer & E. G. McGoun (Eds.),
124
Advances in International Comparative Management (pp. 172-150). London, UK:
JAI Press.
17. Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of
collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal,
36(2), 319-348.
18. Earley, P. C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 89-117.
19. Earley, P. C., & Erez, M. (1997). The transplanted executive. New York: Oxford
University Press.
20. Elizur, D., Borg, I., Hunt, R., & Beck, I. M. (1991). The structure of work values: A
cross cultural comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 21-38.
21. England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of American Managers. Academy of
Management Journal, 10, 53-68.
22. Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies
across cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 658-665.
23. Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1989). Collectivism and Attitudes to Teamwork Scale.
Paper presented at the The Academy of Management Conference.
24. Furrer, O., Liu, B. S.-C., & Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationships between culture
and service quality perceptions: Basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and
resource allocation. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 355-371.
25. Gaines, S. O., Marelich, W. D., Bledsoe, K. L., Steers, W. N., Henderson, M. C., &
Granrose, C. S., et. al. (1997). Links between race/ethnicity and cultural values as
125
mediated by racial/ethnic identity and moderated by gender. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72, 1460-1476.
26. Gannon, M. (2004). Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys
Through 28 Nations, Clusters, and Continents (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
27. Gannon, M., Locke, E. A., Gupta, A., Audia, P., & Kristof-Brown, A. L. (20052006). Cultural Metaphors as Frames of Reference for Nations. International Studies
of Management & Organization, 35(4), 37-47.
28. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.
29. Gerganov, E. N., Dilova, M. L., Petkova, K. G., & Paspalanova, E. P. (1996).
Culture-specific approach to the study of individualism/collectivism. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 26(2), 277-297.
30. Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (2000). Building Cross-Cultural
Competence: How to Create Wealth from Conflicting Values. New Haven & London:
Yale University Press.
31. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in WorkRelated Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
32. Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of
cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 13(1,2), 46-74.
33. Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301-320.
34. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of Mind. London:
McGraw Hill.
126
35. Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management Science, 40(1),
4-14.
36. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications,
Inc.
37. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent
validation using Rokeach's Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
15(4), 417-433.
38. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucian connection: From cultural roots
to economic growth. Organization Dynamics, 16, 4-21.
39. Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking
Traits and Dimensions of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52-89.
40. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004).
Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
41. Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research
in Personality, 22, 17-36.
42. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of crosscultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225-248.
43. Hui, C. H., & Yee, C. (1994). The shortened Individualism-Collectivism Scale: Its
relationship to demographic and work-related variables. Journal of Research in
Personality, 28(4), 409-424.
127
44. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1985). Test for individual perception
of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 10551064.
45. Inglehart, R., Basanez, M., & Moreno, A. (2004). Human Values and Beliefs: A
Cross-Cultural Sourcebook. Delegacion Coyoacan, Mexico: Ciglo Veintiuno
Editores, S.A. de C.V.
46. Jung, J. M., & Kellaris, J. J. (2001). Measuring individualism and collectivism at the
level of the individual: Preliminary report on the development and assessment of a
parsimonious scale. Paper presented at the American Marketing Association.
47. Kato, K., & Markus, H. R. (1993). The role of possible selves in memory.
Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 36(2), 73-83.
48. Kim, M. S., & Leung, K. (1997). A revised self-construal scale. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
49. Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, R. (1954). An empirical investigation of self attitudes.
American Sociological Review, 19, 68-76.
50. Lind, E. A., Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Procedural context and culture:
Variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgments. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73(4), 767-780.
51. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective:
Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20(5), 568-579.
52. Martin, J. G., & Westie, F. R. (1959). The tolerant personality. American Sociological
Review, 24, 521-528.
128
53. 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 Interpersonal Assessment Inventory. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 743-767.
54. Maznevski, M. L., & DiStefano, J. J. (1995). Measuring culture in international
management: The cultural perspectives questionnaire. The University of Western
Ontario Working Paper Series, 95-39.
55. Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self and others in a
multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 993-1009.
56. Paulson, S. K. (2005). Teaching international business concepts through the exchange
of cultural metaphors. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 16(4), 81.
57. Robert, C., & Wasti, S. A. (2002). Organizational individualism and collectivism:
Theoretical development and an empirical test of a measure. Journal of Management,
28(4), 544-566.
58. Roccas, S., & Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Church-state relations and the association of
religiosity with values: A study of Catholics in six countries. Cross-Cultural
Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 31(4), 356-375.
59. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
60. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 1-65).
61. 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.),
129
Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods and Applications (pp. 85-119).
London: Sage.
62. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for
Work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(23-47).
63. Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values
with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230255.
64. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent selfconstruals. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.
65. Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995).
Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical
and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research: the Journal of Comparative
Social Science, 29(3), 240-275.
66. Smith, P. B. (2002). Culture's consequences: Something old and something new.
Human Relations, 55(1), 119-135.
67. Triandis, H. C. (1983). Allocentric vs. idiocentric social behavior: A major cultural
difference between Hispanics and Mainstream. Tech. rep. ONR-16, Champaign, IL:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois.
68. Triandis, H. C. (1994). INDCOL. Unpublished research scale on Individualism and
Collectivism. Champaign: University of Illinois.
69. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
130
70. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Brenes, A., et
al. (1986). The measurement of the ethic aspects of individualism and collectivism
across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 257-267.
71. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988).
Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup
relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338.
72. Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., & Chan, D. K. (1998). Scenarios for the measurement of
collectivism and individualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(2), 275289.
73. Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and
vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(1), 118-128.
74. Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus
idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research
in Personality, 19, 395-415.
75. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in
Global Business. Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing.
76. Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. P., & Thomas, J. L. (2003). The perceived role of ethics
and social responsibility: A study of marketing professionals. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 13(1), 63-86.
77. Voich, D. (1995). Comparative Empirical Analysis of Cultural Values and
Perceptions of Political Economy Issues. Westport, CT: Praeger.
131
78. Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects of cooperation in
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-172.
79. Wagner, J. A., Meyer, C. J., Humphrey, S. E., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2005). Studies of
individualism-collectivism: Effects of utilitarian and ontological differences among
individuals on multitask performance in teams. Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Annual Meeting, Honolulu, HI.
80. Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-Collectivism: Concept and
Measure. Group & Organization Studies, 11(3), 280-303.
81. Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis,
C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory,
Method, and Applications (pp. 175-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
82. Yi, J.-S. (2004). Individualism-Collectivism: A Geographical Comparison among
Cities in Korea and the United States. The Journal of Language for International
Business, 15(2), 19-33.
83. Yoo, S.-K. (1996). Individualism-collectivism, attribution styles of mental illness,
depression symptomatology, and attitudes toward seeking professional help: A
comparative study between Koreans and Americans. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN.
132
Appendix 3. Questionnaire for Detecting Measures of Work-Related Cultural Values
Age: _______
Gender:
M
F
Occupation Type (you may choose more than one):
Position does not require any special education
Blue collar
Office worker
Professional (requires a specific degree to perform the job)
First-line manager
Manager of managers
Owner of a business
-------------------------Undergraduate student
Master’s student
PhD student
Highest Degree Earned
High school
Community college
Unfinished Bachelor’s
Bachelor’s or equivalent
Master’s
PhD
Country of origin: ______________________________
Years spent in Canada: __________
133
Completely
determined by
cultural
background
Affected to
some degree
How much is this value or
orientation affected by one’s
ethnic/cultural background?
Not affected at
all
Predicts
perfectly
Predicts to
some degree
Values and orientations
Does not
predict at all
How much does this value or
orientation predict individual
behavior in the workplace?
Achievement Orientation: Willingness to win, advance, get a
better position, earn more and succeed at any cost, even if it
means harmed interpersonal relations and/or sacrifice of
personal life.
Ambiguity Avoidance: The degree to which people are made
nervous by uncertain situations and ambiguity and prefer to
have clear rules, guidance, bureaucratic practices and rituals
for every situation
Assertiveness: The extent to which an individual exhibits
assertive, self-confident, and tough behavior and values
Attitude to Ritual Suicide: The degree to which individuals
can accept or even encourage suicide performed as a point of
honor or for a perceived higher purpose (e.g. suicide bombing
or hara-kiri )
Conformity: The degree to which individuals restrain their
actions, inclinations, and impulses that are likely to upset or
134
harm others.
Conservatism: The degree to which people resist quick
change and try to preserve the traditional way of doing things.
135
Completely
determined by
cultural
background
Affected to
some degree
How much is this value or
orientation affected by one’s
ethnic/cultural background?
Not affected at
all
Predicts
perfectly
Predicts to
some degree
Values and orientations
Does not
predict at all
How much does this value or
orientation predict individual
behavior in the workplace?
Determinism: Degree to which people believe that their paths
are predetermined by the forces they cannot control and what
has to happen will happen regardless of their efforts.
Family Integration: The degree to which individuals
maintain close ties with their extended families, consult their
family members when making important decisions, and
believe that family members should live as close to each other
as possible.
Gender Equality: Perceiving roles and abilities of men and
women as equal and believing that men and women have the
same rights and responsibilities and are capable of performing
equally well on most work-related tasks including managing
people.
Pleasure-seeking: The extent to which people emphasize
pleasure and enjoyment of life and attribute secondary role to
the work life; belief that people work to live, not live to work.
136
Humane Orientation: The degree to which individuals
encourage and reward fairness, altruism, generosity, caring
and being kind to others.
137
Completely
determined by
cultural
background
Affected to
some degree
How much is this value or
orientation affected by one’s
ethnic/cultural background?
Not affected at
all
Predicts
perfectly
Predicts to
some degree
Values and orientations
Does not
predict at all
How much does this value or
orientation predict individual
behavior in the workplace?
Inclination to Teamwork: Preference to work in a team
rather than work alone, willingness to share responsibilities,
rewards, and punishments with the team members, and being
ready to put interests of the team before personal interests.
Independent/Interdependent Self-Perception: The extent to
which individuals include close relationships in their
representation of self. In other words, the extent to which
individuals feel that their relatives, friends and organizations
they belong to are an important part of themselves.
Machiavellism: The extent to which a person is manipulative,
deceiving, and willing to use dirty tricks when dealing with
others.
Emotional vs. Neutral: The degree to which people believe
that displaying feelings at work is unprofessional and
inappropriate.
Personal Independence: The degree to which individuals
138
value their privacy, believe what happens to them is their own
doing, and prefer to struggle through personal problems or
enjoy personal achievement by themselves.
139
Completely
determined by
cultural
background
Affected to
some degree
How much is this value or
orientation affected by one’s
ethnic/cultural background?
Not affected at
all
Predicts
perfectly
Predicts to
some degree
Values and orientations
Does not
predict at all
How much does this value or
orientation predict individual
behavior in the workplace?
Power Distance: The extent to which people expect and
accept that power in organizations is distributed unequally;
degree of inequality among people which the individual
accepts as normal.
Relationship Depth: The degree to which individuals develop
close relationships with their co-workers and remain close
friends and interact frequently outside the workplace settings.
Relationship to Environment: Subjugation vs. mastery; the
extent to which people feel they can and should change the
environment vs. they should adjust themselves to the
environment.
Risk Avoidance: The extent to which people are reluctant to
take risk or make risky decisions.
Self-Identity: The extent to which individuals emphasize their
personal identity, independent of others, strive to be original
and different, and do not like to be identified with their groups,
140
such as families or organizations.
Self-Reliance: The degree to which individuals tend to rely on
themselves in difficult situations rather than expect help from
others.
Completely
determined by
cultural
background
Affected to
some degree
How much is this value or
orientation affected by one’s
ethnic/cultural background?
Not affected at
all
Predicts
perfectly
Predicts to
some degree
Values and orientations
Does not
predict at all
How much does this value or
orientation predict individual
behavior in the workplace?
Short- vs. Long-Term Orientation: Seeking quick gains
even if it means loses in the future vs. focusing on the future
outcomes and being ready to suffer losses in the short-run for
the sake of the future gains.
Status by ascription vs. Status by achievement: Perceiving
status based on who the person is (son of a famous or wealthy
person, royalty, older person, man) vs. perceiving status based
on person’s personal achievement and skills.
Universalism vs. Particularism: People with universalism
orientation believe that rules must apply equally to everyone
and under every circumstance; while people with
particularism orientation believe that some exceptions from
rules can be made depending on the person (e.g. close friend)
141
and mitigating circumstances
Believing in Evil/Good Basic Human Nature: Believing that
people are essentially bad or good and as a result always
expect people to behave badly (avoid work, steal, lie) or well
(work hard, be helpful, be honest).
142
Appendix 5. Expected Sample Size
Source
Expected Number of Usable
Responses
Pessimisti
c
Corporations and Public Organizations
Optimis
tic
100
500
60
500
80
500
20
250
20
70
60
300
310
2,120
(five to ten organizations)
Non-profit organizations working with
immigrants (two or three)
Ethnic community centers and ethnic food
stores (two to ten)
International Student Centers (UofC or
more universities in Western Canada)
Calgary Chinese Students & Scholars
Association
Students recruited via flyers (UofC, SAIT,
ACAD, MRC)
Total
Realistic =
2 * Pessimisti c  Re aslistic 2 * 310  2,120

 913
3
3
143
Bibliography
Adler, N. J. (2002). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Cincinnati,
OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Ali, A. (1993). Decision-making style, individualism, and attitudes toward risk of Arab
executives. International Studies of Management & Organization, 23(3), 53.
Ataca, B., & Berry, J. W. (2002). Psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of
Turkish immigrant couples in Canada. International Journal of Psychology,
37(1), 13-26.
Atiyyah, H. S. (1996a). Expatriate acculturation in Arab Gulf countries. The Journal of
Management Development, 15(5), 37-47.
Atiyyah, H. S. (1996b). Expatriate acculturation in Arab Gulf countries. The Journal of
Management Development, 15(5), 37-52.
Atkinson, D. R., & Matsushita, Y. J. (1991). Japanese-American acculturation,
counselling style, counsellor ethnicity, and perceived counsellor credibility.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(4), 473-478.
Barnes, J. (1954). Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish. Human Relations,
7, 39-58.
Bauer, T. N., & Taylor, S. (2001). When Manageing expatriate adjustment, don't forget
the spouse. The Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 135-137.
Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., & Li, J. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the
relationship between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese
employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 692-711.
144
Bennett, M. (1977). Response characteristics of bilingual managers to organisational
questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 30(1), 29-36.
Berger, M. (1996). Cross-Cultural Team Building: Guidelines for More Effective
Communication and Negotiation. New York: McGraw Hill UK.
Berry, J. W. (1988). Psychology of acculturation: Understanding individuals moving
between cultures. In J. W. Berry & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Ethnic Psychology:
Research and Practice with Immigrants, Refugees, Native People, Ethnic Groups
and Sojourners (pp. 1-40). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Berry, J. W. (1992). Acculturation and adaptation in a new society. International
Migration, 30, 69-85.
Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation and psychological adaptation: An overview. In A.-M.
Bouvy & F. van de Vijver (Eds.), Journeys into cross-cultural psychology (pp.
129-141). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
Berry, J. W. (1997a). Constructing and expanding a framework: Opportunities for
developing acculturation research. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
46(1), 62-68.
Berry, J. W. (1997b). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 46(1), 5-34.
Berry, J. W. (1998). Acculturation and health: Theory and research. Kazarian, Shahe S
(Ed); Evans, David R (Ed). (1998). Cultural clinical psychology: Theory,
research, and practice.
Berry, J. W., & Annis, R. C. (1974). Acculturative stress: The role of ecology, culture
and differentiation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5(4), 382-406.
145
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., & Boski, P. (1987). Psychological acculturation of immigrants. In
Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation: Current
approaches (pp. 312-326). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & et al. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in
plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38(2), 185-206.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural
psychology: Research and applications: (1992).
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry, M. H.
Segall & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 291325). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Birman, D. (1994). Acculturation and human diversity in a multicultural society. In E. J.
Trickett, R. J. Watts & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on
people in context (pp. 261 284). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a Comprehensive Model of
International Adjustment: An Integration of Multiple Theoretical Perspectives.
The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 291-317.
Bond, M. H., & Cheung, M.-k. (1984). Experimenter language choice and ethnic
affirmation by Chinese trilinguals in Hong Kong. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 8(4), 347-356.
Bond, M. H., & Yang, K.-s. (1982). Ethnic affirmation versus cross-cultural
accommodation: The variable impact of questionnaire language on Chinese
bilinguals from Hong Kong. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13(2), 169185.
146
Briggs, W. (1999). Next for communicators: Global negotiation. Communication World,
16(1), 12-15.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X.,
et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on
reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 300-315.
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of
Personality, 30, 29-50.
Camarota, S. A., & McArdle, N. (2003). Where immigrants live: An examination of state
residency of the foreign born by country of origin in 1990 and 2000. Center of
Immigration Studies Annual Report,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1203.html.
Carr, D. S., & Williams, D. R. (1993). Understanding the role of ethnicity in outdoor
recreation experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(1), 22-38.
Chang, K., & Ding, C. G. (1995). The influence of culture on industrial buying selection
criteria in Taiwan and Mainland China. Industrial Marketing Management, 24(4),
277-284.
Chavez, L. R. (2004). A class half empty: Latina reproduction and public discourse.
Human Organization, 63(2), 173-179.
Chen, C. C., Meindl, J. R., & Hui, C. H. (1998). Deciding on equity or parity: A test of
situational, cultural, and individual factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
19(2), 115-133.
147
Chen, C. C., Meindl, J. R., & Hunt, R. G. (1997). Testing the effects of vertical and
horizontal collectivism: A study of reward allocation preferences in China.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(1), 44-70.
Chen, Y. R., Brockner, J., & Katz, T. (1998). Toward an explanation of cultural
differences in in-group favoritism: The role of individual versus collective
primacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1490-1502.
Chiu, R. K.-K. (1994). A cross-cultural study of the collectivism-individualism paradigm:
The influence of confucian values on the conflict-handling behavior of male
graduate business students in Hong Kong and the United States. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, US.
Christie, P. M. J., Kwon, I. W. G., Stoeberl, P. A., & Baumhart, R. (2003). A crosscultural comparison of ethical attitudes of business managers: India, Korea and
the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3), 263-287.
Christie, R. (1968). Machiavellianism scale. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes (pp. 590-603). Ann Arbor, MI:
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
CIC. (2006). Immigration Statistics. Retrieved 10 February 2006, 2006, from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/you-asked/section03.html
Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (1995). An exploratory examination of
international differences in auditors' ethical perceptions. Behavioral Research in
Accounting, 7, 37-64.
148
Coleman, H. L. K., Casali, S. B., & Wampold, B. E. (2001). Adolescent strategies for
coping with cultural diversity. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79(3),
356-364.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis
Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Miffin Company.
Cox, T., Jr. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berett-Koehler
Publishers.
Cromwell, J. B., Hannan, M. J., Labys, W. C., & Terraza, M. (1994). Multivariate Tests
for Time Series Models. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Curry, B. (2005, Oct. 13). Immigrants are needed to foot pensions: Pettigrew. The Globe
and Mail, p. A7.
Dallo, F. J., & James, S. A. (2000). Acculturation and blood pressure in a communitybased sample of Chaldean-American women. Journal of Immigrant Health, 2(3),
145-153.
Dato-on, M. C. (2000). Cultural assimilation and consumption behaviors: A
methodological investigation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12(4), 427-446.
Davison, S. C. (1994). Creating a high performance international team. The Journal of
Management Development, 13(2), 81-90.
Davison, S. C., & Ward, K. (1999). Leading International Teams. London, UK:
McGraw-Hill International.
Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being
of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 851-872.
149
Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of
collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal,
36(2), 319-348.
Earley, P. C., & Stubblebine, P. (1989). Intercultural assessment of performance
feedback. Group & Organization Studies, 14(2), 161-181.
Edstrom, A., & Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Transfer of managers as a coordination and
control strategy in multinational organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
22, 248-263.
Elsass, P. M., & Veiga, J. F. (1994). Acculturation in acquired organizations: A forcefield perspective. Human Relations, 47(4), 431-453.
Elwell, C. M., Brown, R. J., & Rutter, D. R. (1984). Effects of accent and visual
information on impression formation. Journal of Language & Social Psychology,
3(4), 297-299.
England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of American Managers. Academy of
Management Journal, 10, 53-68.
Faber, R. J., O'Guinn, T. C., & McCarty, J. A. (1987). Ethnicity, acculturation, and the
importance of product attributes. Psychology & Marketing, 4(2), 121-134.
Fadil, P. A. (1997). An empirical investigation of the influences of
individualism/collectivism, recipient group membership, and recipient
performance differentiation on reward behavior in third person allocation
situations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.
150
Fassmann, H., & Münz, R. (2002). EU enlargement and future East-West migration in
Europe. In International Organization for Migration: Migration Challenges in
Central and Eastern Europe. United Nations: 2002 Report.
Ferrari, S. (1972). Human behavior in international groups. Management International
Review, 12(6), 31-35.
Florkowski, G. W., & Fogel, D. S. (1999). Expatriate adjustment and commitment: The
role of host-unit treatment. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 10(782-807).
Furrer, O., & Sudharshan, D. (2001). Segmenter le marché européen des services: Une
approche culturelle. Revue Française du Marketing, 181, 81-96.
Gabrielidis, C., Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Pearson, V. M., & Villareal, L. (1997).
Preferred styles of conflict resolution: Mexico and the United States. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 661-677.
Garrett, M. T., & Pichette, E. F. (2000). Red as an apple: Native American acculturation
and counseling with or without reservation. Journal of Counseling and
Development : JCD, 78(1), 3-13.
Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., Shaw, A., Christakopoulou, S., & et al. (2003). Acculturation of
Greek family values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(3), 329-338.
Gfroerer, J. C., & Tan, L. L. (2003). Substance use among foreign-born youths in the
United States: Does the length of residence matter? American Journal of Public
Health, 93(11), 1892-1895.
151
Gim, R. H., Atkinson, D. R., & Whiteley, S. (1990). Asian-American acculturation,
severity of concerns, and willingness to see a counselor. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 37(3), 281-285.
Gire, J. T. (1997). The varying effect of individualism-collectivism on preference for
methods of conflict resolution. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 29, 3843.
Gire, J. T., & Carment, D. W. (1993). Dealing with disputes: The influence of
individualism-collectivism. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 81-96.
Glanz, L., Williams, R., & Hoeksema, L. (2001). Sensemaking in expatriation - A
theoretical basis. Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(1), 101.
Gomez, M. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (1994). An initial model of Latina achievement:
Acculturation, biculturalism, and achieving styles. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 41(2), 205-215.
Goodwin, J., & Goodwin, D. (1999). Ethical judgments across cultures: A comparison
between business students from Malaysia and New Zealand. Journal of Business
Ethics, 18(3), 267-281.
Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race. New York, NY,
USA: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Goto, S. G. (1997). Majority and minority perspectives on cross-cultural interactions. In
C. S. Granrose & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Cross-cultural Work Groups (pp. 90-112).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
152
Graham, J. L., Mintu, A. T., & Rodgers, W. (1994). Explorations of negotiation
behaviors in ten foreign cultures using a model developed in the United States.
Management Science, 40(1), 72-95.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., & Nishida, T. (1996). The
influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual
values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication
Research, 22(4), 510-543.
Hansen, J., & Lofstrom, M. (2003). Immigrant assimilation and welfare participation. The
Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 74-98.
Hara, K., & Kim, M.-S. (2004). The effect of self-construals on conversational
indirectness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(1), 1-18.
Harzing, A.-W., & Maznevski, M. (2002). The interaction between language and culture:
A test of the cultural accommodation hypothesis in seven countries. Language
and Intercultural Communication, 2(2), 120-139.
Harzing, A. W. K. (2001). Of Bears, Bumble-Bees, and Spiders: The Role of Expatriates
in Controlling Foreign Subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 36(4), 366-380.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301-320.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management Science, 40(1), 414.
153
Hofstede, G. (2001a). Culture's Consequences : Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions, and Organizations Across Nation (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Hofstede, G. (2001b). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2 ed.). London: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucian connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organization Dynamics, 16, 4-21.
Hom, K. L. (1996). Investigating the influence of individualism-collectivism and
acculturation on counselor preference and attitudes toward seeking counseling
among Asian-Americans. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State
University.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004).
Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in
Personality, 22, 17-36.
Hui, C. H. (1990). Work attitudes, leadership styles, and managerial behaviors in
different cultures. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology
Cross-cultural research and methodology series (Vol. 14, pp. 186-208).
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of crosscultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225-248.
154
Hui, C. H., & Yam, Y.-m. (1987). Effects of language proficiency and physical
attractiveness on person perception. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(3),
257-261.
Hui, C. H., & Yee, C. (1994). The shortened Individualism-Collectivism Scale: Its
relationship to demographic and work-related variables. Journal of Research in
Personality, 28(4), 409-424.
Husted, L., Nielsen, H. S., Rosholm, M., & Smith, N. (2001). Employment and wage
assimilation of male first-generation immigrants in Denmark. International
Journal of Manpower, 22(1/2), 39-68.
Hutchinson, M., & Gul, F. A. (1997). The interactive effects of extroversion/introversion
traits and collectivism/individualism cultural beliefs on student group learning
preferences. Journal of Accounting Education, 15(1), 95-107.
Hutnik, N. (1991). Ehtnic Minority Identity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ingham, C. (1991). When Business East Meets Business West: The Guide to Practice and
Protocol in the Pacific Rim. New York: Wiley.
Inglehart, R., Basanez, M., & Moreno, A. (2004). Human Values and Beliefs: A CrossCultural Sourcebook. Delegacion Coyoacan, Mexico: Ciglo Veintiuno Editores,
S.A. de C.V.
Jamal, A. (1996). Acculturation: the symbolism of ethnic eating among contemporary
British consumers. British Food Journal, 98(10), 12-26.
Katz, T. Y. (1999). Self-construal as a moderator of the effects of task and reward
interdependence on group performance. (individualism, collectivism,
155
productivity). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New
York, NY.
Khairullah, D. Z., & Khairullah, Z. Y. (1999a). Behavioural acculturation and
demographic characteristics of Asian-Indian immigrants in the United States of
America. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 19(1/2), 57.
Khairullah, D. Z., & Khairullah, Z. Y. (1999b). Relationships between acculturation,
attitude toward the advertisement, and purchase intention of Asian-Indian
immigrants. International Journal of Commerce & Management, 9(3/4), 46-62.
Kim, B. S. K., Atkinson, D. R., & Yang, P. H. (1999). The Asian Values Scale:
Development, factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 46(3), 342-352.
Kim, K. I., Park, H.-j., & Suzuki, N. (1990). Reward allocations in the United States,
Japan, and Korea: A comparison of individualistic and collectivistic cultures.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 188-198.
Kirkman, B. L. (1997). The impact of national culture on employee resistance to teams:
A comparative analysis of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness
between the United States, Finland, and the Philippines. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Kossoudji, S. A. (1989). Immigrant worker assimilation: Is it labor market phenomenon.
The Journal of Human Resources, 24(3), 494-527.
Kozan, M. K., & Ergin, C. (1999). The influence of intra-cultural value differences on
conflict management practices. International Journal of Conflict Management,
10(3), 249-267.
156
Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). Leadership and culture: Work-related values and leadership
styles among one company's U.S. and German telecommunication employees.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(2), 135-154.
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, R. (1954). An empirical investigation of self attitudes.
American Sociological Review, 19, 68-76.
Kunkel, M. A. (1990). Expectations about Counseling in Relation to Acculturation in
Mexican-American and Anglo-American Student Samples. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 37(3), 286-292.
Kwak, K., & Berry, J. W. (2001). Generational differences in acculturation among Asian
families in Canada: A comparison of Vietnamese, Korean, and East-Indian
groups. International Journal of Psychology, 36(3), 152-162.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1994). The African American Acculturation Scale:
Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Black Psychology, 20(2), 104127.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1995). The African American Acculturation Scale II:
Cross-validation and short form. Journal of Black Psychology, 21(2), 124-152.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). African American acculturation: Deconstructing
race and reviving culture: (1996).
Larsson, R., & Lubatkin, M. (2001). Achieving acculturation in mergers and acquisitions:
An international case study. Human Relations, 54(12), 1573-1607.
Le, M. H. (2005). Behavioral acculturation, psychological acculturation, and
psychological well-being across generations of Vietnamese immigrants and
157
refugees. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
NB, US.
Lee, H. Y., & Bolster, F. J. (1992). Collectivism-individualism in perception of speech
rate. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(3), 377-388.
Lee, S. (2005). Judgment of Ingroups and Outgroups in Intra- and Intercultural
Negotiation: The Role of Interdependent Self-Construal in Judgment Timing.
Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(1), 43-62.
Lee, W. N. (1993). Acculturation and advertising communication strategies: A crosscultural study of Chinese and Americans. Psychology & Marketing, 10(5), 381397.
Lee, W. N., & Ro Um, K. H. (1992). Ethnicity and consumer product evaluation: A
cross-cultural comparison of Korean immigrants and Americans. In J. F. Sherry &
B. Sternthal (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 19, pp. 429-436).
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Lee, W. N., & Tse, D. K. (1994). Changing media consumption in a new home:
Acculturation patterns among Hong Kong immigrants to Canada. Journal of
Advertising, 23(1), 57-70.
Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict
resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
53(5), 898-908.
Lituchy, T. R. (1997). Negotiations between Japanese and Americans: The effects of
collectivism on integrative outcomes. Revue Canadienne des Sciences de
l'Administration, 14(4), 386-395.
158
Liu, X., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). An Investigation of Expatriate Adjustment and
Performance: A Social Capital Perspective. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 5(3), 235-254.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and Sensemaking: What Newcomers Experience in
Entering Unfamiliar Organizational Settings. Administrative Science Quarterly,
25, 226-251.
MacArthur, J. B. (1996). An investigation into the influence of cultural factors in the
international lobbying of the International Accounting Standards Committee: The
case of E32, Comparability of Financial Statements. The International Journal of
Accounting, 31(2), 213-227.
Mann, L., Radford, M., & Kanagawa, C. (1985). Cross-cultural differences in children's
use of decision rules: A comparison between Japan and Australia. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 49(6), 1557-1564.
Manrai, L. A., & Manrai, A. K. (1995). Effects of cultural-context, gender, and
acculturation on perceptions of work versus social/leisure time usage. Journal of
Business Research, 32(2), 115-128.
Marin, G., Triandis, H. C., Kashima, Y., & Betancourt, H. (1983). Ethnic affirmation
versus social desirability: Explaining discrepancies in bilinguals' responses to a
questionnaire. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14(2), 173-186.
Marino, R., Stuart, G. W., & Minas, I. (2000). Acculturation of values and behavior: A
study of Vietnamese immigrants. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling &
Development, 33(1), 21-41.
159
Martin, J. G., & Westie, F. R. (1959). The tolerant personality. American Sociological
Review, 24, 521-528.
Mason, P. L. (2004). Annual income, hourly wages, and identity among MexicanAmericans and other Latinos. Industrial Relations, 43(4), 817-831.
Maznevski, M. L., & DiStefano, J. J. (1995). Measuring culture in international
management: The cultural perspectives questionnaire. The University of Western
Ontario Working Paper Series, 95-39.
McCrae, R. R., Yik, M. S. M., Trapnell, P. D., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998).
Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and peer
rating studies of Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 74(4), 1041-1055.
McEntire, M. H., & Bentley, J. C. (1996). When rivals become partners: Acculturation in
a newly-merged organization. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
4(2), 154-174.
McFee, M. (1968). The 150% Man, a Product of Blackfeet Acculturation. American
Anthropologist, 70(6), 1096-1107.
McMillan, A., & Lopez, T. B. (2001). Socialization and acculturation: Organizational and
individual strategies toward achieving P-O fit in a culturally diverse society. The
Mid - Atlantic Journal of Business, 37(1), 19-34.
Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985a). The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: A
review. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1),
39-47.
160
Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1985b). The Dimensions of Expatriate Acculturation: A
Review. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 39.
Miller, J. E., Guarnaccia, P. J., & Fasina, A. (2002). AIDS knowledge among Latinos:
The roles of language, culture, and socioeconomic status. Journal of Immigrant
Health, 4(2), 63-72.
Morris, M. W., Williams, K. Y., Leung, K., Larrick, R., Bharnagar, D., Li, J., et al.
(1998). Conflict management style: Accounting for cross-national differences.
Journal of International Business Studies, 29(4), 729-748.
Morrison, E. W., Chen, Y.-R., & Salgado, S. R. (2004). Cultural differences in newcomer
feedback seeking: A comparison of the United States and Hong Kong. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 53(1), 1-22.
Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine
country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business
Venturing, 16(1), 51-69.
Murphy, E. F., & Anderson, T. L. (2003). A longitudinal study exploring value changes
during the cultural assimilation of Japanese student pilot sojourners in the United
States. International Journal of Value - Based Management, 16(2), 111-129.
Nahavandi, A., & Malekzadeh, A. R. (1988). Acculturation in mergers and acquisitions.
Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 79-90.
Neto, F. (1995). Predictors of satisfaction with life among second generation migrants.
Social Indicators Research, 35(1), 93-115.
161
Ng, K. Y., & Dyne, L. V. (2001). Individualism-collectivism as a boundary condition for
effectiveness of minority influence in decision making. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 198-225.
Nyambegera, S. M., Sparrow, P., & Daniels, K. (2000). The impact of cultural value
orientations on individual HRM preferences in developing countries: lessons from
Kenyan organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
11(4), 639-663.
Nyer, P. U., & Gopinath, M. (2001). Bargaining behavior and acculturation: A crosscultural investigation. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 14(2,3),
101-122.
Ochoategui, F. R. B. (1998). The effect of cultural differences in the adoption of TQM
practices in Mexico and the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Olmedo, E. L. (1979). Acculturation: A psychometric perspective. American
Psychologist, 34(11), 1061-1070.
O'Malley, A. S., Kerner, J., Johnson, A. E., & Mandelblatt, J. (1999). Acculturation and
breast cancer screening among Hispanic women in New York City. American
Journal of Public Health, 89(2), 219-227.
Orasanu, J., Fischer, U., & Davison, J. (1997). Cross-cultural barriers to effective
communication in aviation. In C. S. Granrose & S. Oskamp (Eds.), CrossCultural Work Groups (pp. 134-162). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
162
Phinney, J. S., & Flores, J. (2002). "Unpackaging" acculturation: Aspects of acculturation
as predictors of traditional sex role attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33(3), 320-331.
Piazza, T. (1980). The analysis of attitude items. American Journal of Sociology, 86(3),
584-603.
Pörksen, U. (2000). Die Deutschen und ihre Sprache. Bremen: Hempen.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance
orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.
Punnett, B. J. (1991). Language, cultural values and preferred leadership style: A
comparison of Anglophones and Francophones in Ottawa. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 23(2), 241-244.
Quester, P. G., Karunaratna, A., & Chong, I. (2001). Australian Chinese consumers: Does
acculturation affect consumer decision making? Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 13(3), 7-28.
Ramos-Sanchez, L. (2001). The relationship between acculturation, specific cultural
values, gender, and Mexican Americans' help-seeking intentions. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The University of California, Santa Barbara, US.
Redding, G. S. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. NY: De Gruyter.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of
acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.
163
Rodriguez-Reimann, D. I., Nicassio, P., Reimann, J. O. F., Gallegos, P. I., & Olmedo, E.
L. (2004). Acculturation and health beliefs of Mexican Americans regarding
tuberculosis prevention. Journal of Immigrant Health, 6(2), 51-62.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation,
separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7(1),
3-37.
Rudmin, F. W., & Ahmadzadeh, V. (2001). Psychometric critique of acculturation
psychology: The case of Iranian migrants in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 42(1), 41-56.
Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or
bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, selfidentity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 4965.
Salacuse, J. W. (1999). Intercultural negotiation in international business. Group
Decision and Negotiation, 8(3), 217.
Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (1995). Acculturative stress among young immigrants in
Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 36(1), 10-24.
Sands, E. A., & Berry, J. W. (1993). Acculturation and mental health among GreekCanadians in Toronto. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 12(2),
117-124.
164
Sappinen, J. (1993). Expatriate adjustment on foreign assignment. European Business
Review, 93(5), 3-11.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 1-65).
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, Methods and Applications (pp. 85-119).
London: Sage.
Selmer, J., & De Leon, C. (1996). Parent cultural control through organizational
acculturation: HCN employees learning new work values in foreign business
subsidiaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 557-572.
Selvarajah, C. T. (1998). Expatriate acculturation: A comparative study of recent Chinese
business migrants in New Zealand. International Journal of Management, 15(1),
103-115.
Selvarajah, C. T., & Russell, G. (1998a). Expatriate acculturation in Hong Kong: A study
of foreign nationals employed in the financial services sector. International
Journal of Management, 15(2), 248-261.
Selvarajah, C. T., & Russell, G. (1998b). Expatriate acculturation in Hong Kong: A study
of foreign nationals employed in the financial services sector. International
Journal of Management, 15(2), 248.
165
Shelley, D., Fahs, M., Scheinmann, R., Swain, S., & al, e. (2004). Acculturation and
tobacco use among Chinese Americans. American Journal of Public Health,
94(2), 300-307.
Shih, S.-F., & Brown, C. (2000). Taiwanese international students: Acculturation level
and vocational identity. Journal of Career Development, 27(1), 35-47.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F., Rabinowitz. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory
of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1999). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Managers'
Whistleblowing Tendencies. International Journal of Value - Based Management,
12(2), 137-151.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal
and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and
measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research: the Journal of Comparative
Social Science, 29(3), 240-275.
Souza, R. J. d. (2006). Dumbing down 'Canadian values'. National Post, March 9, A15.
Spector, P. E. (1981). Research Designs. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
StatAustralia. (2006). Immigration in Australia reaches 15 year high. Retrieved Feb-1006, from
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_01_02/australia/immigration_reachs_15_
year_high.htm
Suri, R., & Manchanda, R. V. (2001). The effects of acculturation on consumers'
sensitivity to prices. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 13(1), 35-56.
166
Swierczek, F. W., & Onishi, J. (2003). Culture and conflict: Japanese managers and Thai
subordinates. Personnel Review, 32(1/2), 187-210.
Szapocznik, J., Scopetta, M. A., Kurtines, W., & Aranalde, M. D. (1978). Theory and
measurement of acculturation. Revista Interamericana de Psicologia, 12(2), 113130.
Tan, B. L. B. (2002). Researching managerial values: A cross-cultural comparison.
Journal of Business Research, 55(10), 815-821.
Taras, V., & Kline, T. J. B. (2006). Quantifying Item Validity Using the Dh Index. Under
review - The Organizational Research Methods Journal.
Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2006). Improving Cultural Indices and Rankings Based on a MetaAnalysis of Hofstede's Taxonomy. Paper presented at the Academy of
International Business Annual Meeting, Beijing, China.
Taras, V., & Steel, P. D. G. (2004). Cross-cultural differences and dynamics of cultures
over time: A meta-analysis of Hofstede's taxonomy. In progress.
Teoh, H. Y., Serang, D. P., & Lim, C. C. (1999). Individualism-Collectivism Cultural
Differences Affecting Perceptions of Unethical Practices: Some Evidence from
Australian and Indonesian Accounting Students. Teaching Business Ethics, 3(2),
137-153.
Thomas, D. C. (1999). Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 30(2), 242-263.
Triandis, H. C. (1972). The Analysis of Subjective Culture. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). INDCOL. Unpublished research scale on Individualism and
Collectivism. Champaign: University of Illinois.
167
Triandis, H. C. (1997). Where is culture in the acculturation model? Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 46(1), 55-58.
Triandis, H. C., Kashima, Y., Hui, C., Lisansky, J., & et al. (1982). Acculturation and
biculturalism indices among relatively acculturated Hispanic young adults.
Revista Interamericana de Psicologia, 16(2), 140-149.
Triandis, H. C., Kashima, Y., Shimada, E., & Villareal, M. (1986). Acculturation indices
as a means of confirming cultural differences. International Journal of
Psychology, 21(1), 43-70.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global
Business. Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing.
Tropp, L. R., Erkut, S., Coll, C. G., Alarcon, O., & Garcia, H. A. V. (1999).
Psychological acculturation: Development of a new measure for Puerto Ricans on
the US mainland. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 351-367.
Turda, M. (2004). The Idea of National Superiority in Central Europe, 1880-1918.
Ceredigion: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations:
The psychology of conflict resolution accross cultures. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 6, 1138-1163.
Ueltschy, L. C., & Krampf, R. F. (1997). The influence of acculturation on advertising
effectiveness to the Hispanic market. Journal of Applied Business Research,
13(2), 87-101.
168
Valencia, H. (1985). Developing an index to measure "Hispanicness". In E. C. Hirschman
& M. B. Holbrook (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 12, pp. 118121). Provo, UT: Assiciation for Consumer Research.
van de Vijver, F. J., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Feltzer, M. J. (1999). Acculturation and
cognitive performance of migrant children in the Netherlands. International
Journal of Psychology, 34(3), 149-162.
Volard, S. V., Francis, D. M., & Wagner, F. W. (1988). Underperforming U.S. Expatriate
Managers: A Study of Problems and Solutions. The Practising Manager, 9(1), 37.
Wang, X. (2002). Expatriate adjustment from a social network perspective: Theoretical
examination and a conceptual model. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 2(3), 321-337.
Wang, X., & Kanungo, R. N. (2004). Nationality, social network and psychological wellbeing: expatriates in China. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 15(4-5), 775-793.
Warner, W. L., & Srole, L. (1945). The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups. New
Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Wasti, S. A. (2003). Organizational commitment, turnover intentions and the influence of
cultural values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 303321.
Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but crosscultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science,
44(9), 1205.
169
Welch, D. E., Fenwick, M. S., & De Cieri, H. (1994). Staff Transfers as a Control
Strategy: An Exploratory Study to Two Australian Organizations. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2), 473-490.
Wikipedia. (2006). Acculturation. Retrieved March 6, 2006, from www.en.wikipedia.org
Wolfe, M. M., Yang, P. H., Wong, E. C., & Atkinson, D. R. (2001). Design and
development of the European American values scale for Asian Americans.
Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(3), 274-283.
Yang, N. (1996). Effects of individualism-collectivism on perceptions and outcomes of
work-family conflict: A cross-cultural perspective. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.
Yeniyurt, S., & Townsend, J. D. (2003). Does culture explain acceptance of new products
in a country? An empirical investigation. International Marketing Review, 20(4),
377-395.
Young, W. L. (1982). Inscrutability revisited. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and
Social Identity (pp. 72-84): Cambridge University Press.
170