Blog

Peter B Smith; Shaun DuganJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Mar96, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p231NATIONAL CULTURE AND THE VALUES OF ORGANIZATIONAL EMPLOYEESA Dimensional Analysis Across 43 NationsThe values of 8,841 managers and organization employees from 43 countries weresurveyed. The range of nations included paralleled many of those surveyed by Hofstede(1980) but added also substantial samples from ex-communist nations. Questionnaireitems focused primarily on measures of universalism-particularism, achievementascription, and individualism-collectivism Multidimensional scaling of country meansrevealed three interpretable dimensions. The relation of these dimensions to the results ofearlier large-scale surveys and to a variety of demographic indexes is explored. It isfound that there are continuing substantial differences in modal cultural values oforganization employees and that these are largely consistent with differences reported byothers. The present results suggest that the dimensions defined by Hofstede asindividualism-collectivism and power distance may be better defined as representingvarying orientations toward continuity of group membership (loyalinvolvement/utilitarian involvement) and varying orientations toward the obligations ofsocial relationship (conservatism/egalitarian commitment).Most psychological research has been undertaken in Western nations, particularly in NorthAmerica (Lonner, 1989; Sampson, 1985; Smith & Bond, 1993). Smith and Bond (1993) note thefrequent failures to replicate social psychological findings from American studies in othernational cultures, thus throwing some doubt on the cross-cultural validity of Western theories ofsuch phenomena as leadership, conformity, group decision making, attribution theory, andintergroup relations.Reflection on the culture-bound nature of much empirical and theoretical psychology underlinesthe need for studies in which the conceptualization and measurement of culture is given a centralrole. A major goal of cross-cultural psychology has been the identification of dimensions ofcultural variation (e.g., Leung & Bond, 1989; Schwartz, 1994). This is an important goal becauseit opens the way to more adequate operationalizations of the concept of culture. The identificationof reliable dimensions of cultural variation should help create a nomological framework that isboth capable of integrating diverse attitudinal and behavioral empirical phenomena and ofproviding a basis for hypothesis generation. Such a framework would help explain, for example,why some replications of North American studies are successful whereas others are not, as afunction of cultural background. It should also enable researchers to select cultural groups forstudy on an a priori basis, according to their positioning on relevant dimensions (Bond, 1988;Leung, Bond, Carment, Krishnan, & Liebrand, 1990). Informed choices of this kind can enablecertain features of culture to be held constant while the effect of varying others is examined.To identify such dimensions, it is desirable for studies to include as many and as wide a range ofcultures as possible. Most extant cross-cultural work has been confined to a small number ofcultures, though there are notable exceptions (Buss et al., 1990; Williams & Best, 1990; as well asothers now to be discussed). Three pioneering research projects have aimed directly at identifyingcultural dimensions of values, namely the projects of Hofstede (1980, 1983, 1991), Bond (1988;Chinese Culture Connection, 1987), and Schwartz (1990, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990).The purpose of the present article is to examine the replicability of their conclusions and toexamine whether clarifications are required of the dimensions defined by these authors. Threeissues are of particular interest. First, a questionnaire designed without direct reference to theresults of existing large-scale cross-national studies is used to check the replicability ofdimensions identified earlier. Second, the data bank on which this study is based makes itpossible to determine whether demographic attributes earlier associated with nations scoring highon, for instance, individualism or collectivism continue to do so. Third, we can examine whetherthe scores obtained by specific nations cluster similarly to those obtained earlier.We shall first examine the prior studies before outlining the basis of the present survey.Hofstede’s Value DimensionsHofstede’s (1980) well-known study was based on the responses of 117,000 personnel from alarge American-owned multinational company in the period between 1967 and 1973 to aquestionnaire containing items predominantly tapping work-related values. On the basis of anecological factor analysis of mean responses from 40 nations on 14 items concerning theimportance of different work goals, Hofstede identified two factors that he labeled individualismand masculinity. A further two dimensions of national culture labeled power distance anduncertainty avoidance emerged from a so-called eclectic analysis, combining items largely on thebasis of theoretical expectations. Hofstede’s analysis of his data bank was later expanded to 53cultures (Hofstede, 1983).Hofstede’s (1980) power distance dimension is defined in terms of the prevailing norms ofinequality within a culture. Individualism-collectivism refers to the extent to which the identity ofmembers of a given culture is shaped primarily by personal choices and achievements or by thegroups to which they belong. Masculinity-femininity corresponds to a “tough-tender” dimension.In masculine cultures, values such as competition, success, and performance are relatively moreprevalent than in feminine cultures, where there is relatively more emphasis on values such aswarm social relationships, quality of life, and care of the weak. The fourth dimension, uncertaintyavoidance, alludes to the degree to which members of a culture are uncomfortable withuncertainties in life. Societies high on this dimension prefer structured rather than unstructuredsituations, where there are clear guidelines for behavior.Validation of the Hofstede (1980) constructs was achieved through establishing the significanceof their correlations with geographic, economic, and social indicators. The association betweenindividualism and economic development was particularly strong, with collectivist nationstending to have lower per capita gross domestic product.Hofstede (1980) reports a high correlation between the power distance and individualismdimensions. Indeed, his ecological factor analysis based on 32 value items resulted in theextraction of three rather than four factors, corresponding to the masculinity and uncertaintyavoidance dimensions and a combination of power distance and individualism. Thus, althoughHofstede preferred to separate these latter two dimensions conceptually, it appears thatempirically speaking they may be manifestations of the same underlying dimension.Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions have been extensively invoked by researchers to help explaincross-cultural differences (Kagitcibasi & Berry, 1989; Smith & Bond, 1993), despite which hisstudy has not escaped criticism. The range of countries sampled can theoretically affect thedimensions emerging from studies of this type, and Hofstede notes the lack of samples from(former) communist nations. Nevertheless, his study remains to this day the most comprehensivesurvey in terms of the number of national cultures sampled. Another criticism is that the valuessampled were not comprehensive, so that the dimensions identified may not be exhaustive.Hofstede (1991) adds a fifth dimension relating to time perspective.Hofstede’s study (1980) has also been criticized on the basis of the type of samples drawn fromthe national cultures, because all respondents shared a common corporate culture, whichdistinguished them from the broader national populations from which they were drawn. Hofstederegarded his matching strategy as a strength, though doubts can be raised as to whether thoseemployed in servicing and marketing in an industrialized nation are necessarily equivalent tothose in similar roles in a Third World nation. The latter will tend to differ from the former in thatthey may have higher levels of wealth and social status relative to the rest of the nationalpopulation. However, in the absence of random population samples, a sample matching strategyis a necessity (Schwartz, 1994). Evidence for the durability of core cultural dimensions can thenbe shown by the extent that similar patterns of findings emerge from different types of samples,different time periods, and measures from different domains of social behavior.Other Studies of Cultural Dimensions of ValuingThese results leave open the possibility that the measures Hofstede (1980) used may have insome way reflected the Western values of those who designed them. To test for this possibility,Michael Bond in Hong Kong sampled a different domain of values, derived from Chinese culture.He assembled a group of researchers named the Chinese Culture Connection (CCC; 1987), whopresented these to student samples from 22 countries. Respondents were required to rate theimportance of each value. After standardization within each culture, an ecological factor analysisyielded four factors, labelled integration, Confucian work dynamism, human-heartedness, andmoral discipline.Twenty countries were common to this study and Hofstede’s 1983 study, enabling correlationsbetween the Hofstede and CCC factors to be made. Moderate correlations (.50 to .65) werereported between the Hofstede power distance and individualism dimensions and the CCCintegration and moral discipline factors. These four factors loaded together in a second orderfactor analysis, suggesting that they represent aspects of the same underlying dimension ofindividualism-collectivism. The CCC also reported a correlation of .67 between Hofstede’s scoreson masculinity and the CCC human-heartedness factor.The convergence in findings from these two studies is impressive, given that they used measuresderived from two very different cultures and that they used different types of samples. However,cultural variation tapped by Hofstede’s (1980) uncertainty-avoidance dimension was notapproximated by the CCC factors, whereas the Confucian work dynamism factor was unique tothe CCC study. This latter factor, which emphasizes Confucian work ethics such as thrift andpersistence, was found to relate highly and positively to recent data for national economic growth.Bond (1988) reanalyzed the CCC data bank at the level of individuals rather than cultures. Usingfactor analysis, he extracted two factors. The first of these corresponded very closely in terms offactor structure to the CCC integration dimension, with one pole consisting primarily of itemsemphasizing cohesion with others in general and the other pole consisting of items denotingloyalty to more narrowly defined in-groups and their customs. Bond concludes that the“convergence between the cultural and individual levels of analysis indicates the presence of astrong universal” (p. 1012).Schwartz (1992, 1994) surveyed value preferences of individuals in 25 countries, most of whichcontributed two samples, secondary school teachers and students. The 56 values included wereselected on the basis of theoretical reasoning about value types and previous theoretical andempirical studies from both Western and non-Western sources.Schwartz (1992) reported parallel analyses from each of his samples, using smallest spaceanalysis to represent the patterns of intercorrelations between the rated values. The analysesrevealed a remarkable degree of similarity in the value structures of the diverse samples, asindicated by similarity in the ordering of the values in two-dimensional multidimensional scalingsolutions. For the vast majority of the samples, the solutions could be partitioned into regions,such that within each region the values items corresponded to 1 of 10 previously hypothesizedvalue types, namely, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, power,achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction. Moreover, these regions themselvesdisplayed nearly identical patterns of association in each sample, which could be summarized interms of two bipolar dimensions. The first of these was labeled openness to change versusconservation. Openness to change embraced the self-direction and stimulation value types,whereas conservation included the security, conformity, and tradition value types. The otherdimension was labeled self-enhancement versus self-transcendence, with the former including thehedonism, power, and achievement value types, and the latter consisting of the universalism andbenevolence value types.Schwartz (1994) further analyzed his data at the cultural level, using those 45 values previouslyshown to have cross-culturally equivalent meanings for individuals, in an attempt to identify“derived-etic” dimensions of cultural variation (Berry, 1989). As hypothesized, the same twofundamental dimensions of variation were found to structure the value items.The two dimensions reported by Schwartz (1992, 1994) were further divided into seven valuetypes. Three value types broadly corresponded to the openness to change versus conservatismdimension. Conservatism values (e.g., obedience, family security, respect for tradition)emphasized maintenance of the status quo, propriety, and avoidance of actions or inclination ofindividuals that might disturb the traditional order. Intellectual autonomy (e.g., creativity, broadmindedness) and affective autonomy (e.g., pleasure, exciting life) reflected “a more intellectualemphasis on self direction and a more affective emphasis on stimulation and hedonism” (1994, p.102), respectively. Schwartz distinguishes these clusters of values from the definitions ofindividualism and collectivism used by others, though they clearly have some overlap.Four value types were identified corresponding to the self-enhancement versus self-transcendencedimension. Subsumed by the self-enhancement categorization, hierarchy values (e.g., influential,social power) are viewed as “emphasizing the legitimacy of hierarchical role and resourceallocation,” whereas mastery values (e:g:, dating; capable, ambitious) “emphasize active masteryof the social environment through self assertion” (Schwartz, 1994, p. 103). The selftranscendence pole embraces two value types, egalitarian commitment (e.g., freedom, equality,social justice), “values that express concern for the welfare of other people” (p. 104), andharmony (e.g., protect environment, world of beauty), consisting of values “emphasizingharmony with nature” (p. 105). Whereas the two underlying dimensions are (presumably)orthogonal, some of the value types subsumed under these dimensions are not. For example,egalitarian commitment values, which form part of the self-transcendence dimension, are moreclosely related to the openness to change than to the conservatism dimension. This is aconsequence of delineating a seven-fold typology of values in a two-dimensional space.Schwartz (1994) correlated his value types with country scores on Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions.The most important concordance was between the Hofstede power distance and individualismcollectivism dimensions and the Schwartz value types representing the openness to change versusconservatism dimension, with these associations strongest for Schwartz’s student samples.All of the studies reviewed have yielded a factor related to individualism-collectivism. Parallelindividual-level concepts have also been shown to have predictive validity within cultures(Triandis, 1990). It is probably safe to infer that this dimension is the most important yield ofcross-cultural psychology to date, though conceptual dichotomies paralleling individualismcollectivism predate the emergence of the discipline and can be traced back at least to founders ofthe social sciences at the turn of the century such as Tonnies (1887/1963) and Durkheim(1893/1960). Smith and Bond (1993) explore ways in which the individualism-collectivismconstruct can be used to integrate a wide range of cross-cultural social psychological findings,although due attention is also needed to obvious limitations on the predictive validity of anysin

gle construct in accounting for the existing global diversity of social behavior (e.g., Schwartz,1990).THE TROMPENAARS VALUE QUESTIONNAIRETrompenaars (1985) devised a questionnaire based largely upon the delineation of cultural andpersonal “pattern variables” or value dilemmas identified by Parsons and Shils (1951). Some ofthe questionnaire items elicit values by asking respondents how they would act in a series ofbriefly described imaginary situations. Others provide a forced choice between two valuestatements referring to aspects of organizational behavior or more general issues. Thequestionnaire was originally designed to tap the values of employees from energy and hosierycompanies in nine countries. It has subsequently been used in a very much wider range ofcountries (Trompenaars, 1993). Most cross-cultural studies concerning organizations and theiremployees focus on a small group of nations, in particular the United States, Japan, and a groupof Western European nations (Smith, 1992). The Trompenaars database provides a rareopportunity to examine the values espoused by organization members across a range of nationalcultures as broad as that sampled by Hofstede (1980).The Trompenaars (1993) questionnaire includes items addressing seven hypothesized dimensionsof cultural valuing. The first five of these are derived directly from Parsons and Shils (1951),namely universalism-particularism, achievement-ascription, individualism-collectivism,affectivity-neutrality, and specificity-diffuseness. Choice of the remaining dimensions wasinfluenced by the value survey of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), but the actual measure ofinternal-external control that was used is that of Rotter (1966), and the measure of timeperspective is derived from Cottle (1968). Additional items in the questionnaire refer to aspects ofmanagement and organizational structuring. This last group of items is not seen as tapping aseparate domain of values but as illustrating the manner in which more general values are appliedto day-to-day organizational problems.The present study concerns primarily the first three of these proposed dimensions, together withthe management and organization items. Data derived from the Rotter (1966) locus of controlscale are examined in a separate publication (Smith, Trompenaars, & Dugan, 1995). Data fromthe remaining items do not lend themselves readily to the type of data analyses used in thisarticle.The concept of universalism-particularism is derived from the work of Parsons and Shils (1951).They distinguish two types of value standards that may guide behavior of persons or of wholecultures. Persons relying on particularistic value standards will emphasize relationships toparticular people to a greater extent than persons with universalistic value standards, who will beguided relatively more often by standards independent of specific social relationships. “Theparticularistic actor predominantly values interpersonal ties, while the universalistic actor valuesabstract societal expectations” (Trompenaars, 1985, p. 84). Parsons and Shils saw individualismcollectivism (which they termed self vs. collectivity) and universalism-particularism as separatedimensions. Given the previous discussion that emphasized the importance of in-groups incollectivist societies, it is more plausible to suppose that particularist societies will also becollectivist. There is less reason to expect that a universalist society would necessarily beindividualistic, because this would only be the case where the universal principles to be followedendorsed individualist values. These considerations suggest some association between the twodimensions but not a total overlap. Indeed, this prediction is supported by the results of Zurcher,Medow, and Zurcher (1965) who found Mexican bank employees much more particularistic thanU.S. bank employees, using the questionnaire devised by Stouffer and Toby (1951), on which thepresent measure is also based.Parsons and Shils’s (1951) concept of achievement-ascription refers to the characteristics ofpersons that determine their status. Achieved statuses can be “filled” through ability, effort, andcompetition, so that social mobility is possible. For example, the status of an athlete will beachieved. Ascribed statuses, on the other hand, are largely predicated on who a person is.Excellent examples are provided by the British monarchy and the Indian caste system.The third domain of values in Trompenaars’s (1985) questionnaire was individualismcollectivism, a concept that we have already discussed. The definitions provided here make itlikely that there is also some linkage of individualism-collectivism and achievement-ascription.Striving for achieved status is much more likely to occur in individualist societies than incollectivist societies. The findings of Williams and Best (1990) that the relative rigidity of sexroles is higher in more collectivist cultures also fits into this conception.HYPOTHESESWe can now state our hypotheses as to likely structures and interrelationships among theavailable measures, drawing upon the results of the various earlier surveys and the precedingdiscussion of Trompenaars’s (1985) intentions in designing his questionnaire. The first issue atstake is whether or not the dimensions found can be predicted on the basis of earlier work:Hypothesis 1a: A dimension of cultural variation will be found that is significantlyrelated to individualism-collectivism/power distance.Hypothesis 1b: A second dimension, related to masculinity-femininity, humanheartedness, or self-enhancement/self-transcendence, can also be expected.Because the subjects of this survey are organizational employees, we may test the face validity ofthe predicted individualism-collectivism dimension by examining preferences for different typesof organizational behavior in countries located at different points along the dimension:Hypothesis 2: The collectivism pole of an individualism-collectivism/power distancedimension will be associated with items concerning preference for closer bosssubordinate relations, higher company involvement in employees’ lives, preferences forascription over achievement values, and a relatively particularistic perspective.To establish the external validity of emergent dimensions, tests of their relationship toindependent country-level measures are required.Hypothesis 3: The ordering of nations on dimensions related to individualismcollectivism will correlate with indexes of modernity such as per capita gross nationalproduct, literacy rates, and life expectancy.METHODSUBJECTSThe 8,841 respondents used in this study were drawn from 43 nations. They were selected from alarger data bank comprising 10,993 employees of business organizations from 58 nations. Thedata were subject to several screening processes. A total of 9,920 employees replied to a completeor near complete form of the questionnaire described below, with the remainder taking asubstantially shortened version. Respondents taking the shortened version were excluded from thestudy. The data from 12 nations were also excluded because there were fewer than 25 cases foreach of these countries. Three further countries were excluded, namely Nepal, Egypt, andUruguay. A back-translation revealed substantial inaccuracies in the Nepalese translation that hadbeen used, and there was reason to doubt whether the Egyptian data collection had beencompetently executed. The 36 Uruguayan responses were found to be extreme outliers on thedistribution of many variables. They were excluded on the basis of statistical tests, to be reportedin the Results section, which indicate that the extremity of the scores make it probable thatUruguay was not accurately represented in the sample. Four hundred thirty-seven individualrespondents with more than four data points missing on the 39 input variables, and 29 whosecoding for gender was missing, were also excluded.Of the remaining respondents, 2,269 (24.2%) were categorized as having lower socioeconomicstatus, such as manual and clerical workers, and 5,082 (54.2%) were categorized as managerial orprofessional workers (predominantly the former). A further 2,025 (21.6%) respondents could notbe categorized at this point for occupational status, most often because the version of thequestionnaire that they had received did not request this information.A breakdown of the remaining sample sizes for each country by gender is shown in Table 1. Thesample overrepresents European nations (n = 24), with 72.4% of all respondents beingEuropeans. African, Asian, and South American countries are underrepresented, constituting3.2% (n = 3), 17.2% (n = 11), and 4.7% (n = 3) of the sample, respectively.The overall sample is also biased by gender, with males constituting 68.9% of the total.Aggregating data by country and giving unit weighting to each country, the overall proportion ofmales is .68, with a standard deviation of .14. Sixteen country samples include 75% or more ofmales. Countries with relatively high proportions of females (40% or more) are Argentina,Bulgaria, former Czechoslovakia, former East Germany, Finland, Hungary, Indonesia, Mexico,the Philippines, Rumania, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), and theformer Yugoslavia. Thus the gender distribution is much more equal in the former communistbloc countries than in most of the other countries.Mean age by country ranges from a low of 26.5 years in the former Yugoslavia to 43.2 years inthe Norwegian sample. Aggregating the data by country, mean age is 36.1, with a standarddeviation of 4.2. The sample is therefore relatively homogeneous in terms of age distribution.RESEARCH INSTRUMENTSUniversalistic Versus Particularistic ObligationsThe universalism-particularism construct was measured using modified versions of four itemsdevised by Stouffer and Toby (1951). They used stories describing life situations in whichindividuals are asked to state their preference between their obligations of friendship to anindividual (particularistic obligations) and their obligations to society (universalistic obligations).For example, the first item (Unpa 1) describes a situation where the respondent is required toimagine he or she is in a car being driven by a close friend (but not a relative). The friend hits apedestrian while exceeding the 20-mile-per-hour speed limit, and there are no witnesses. Thefriend’s lawyer says that if the respondent testifies that the friend was within the legal speed limit,it may save the friend from serious consequences. The respondent is required to report what he orshe would probably do in this situation in view of his or her obligations to the friend and theobligations of a sworn witness. Would or would not the respondent testify that the friend wasexceeding the speed limit? The respondent is also required to state whether the friend in the givensituation has a “definite right,” “some right,” or “no right” to expect the respondent to testify intheir favor. Thus the items tap both behavioral intentions and perceptions of norms.The other three dilemmas have a similar structure. One (Unpa2) concerns a situation where thefriend in this case runs a restaurant and the respondent is asked to imagine that he or she is ajournalist who reviews restaurants. The food is poor. Should the respondent report the truth of thematter or not? In another (Unpa3), the respondent is asked to imagine that he or she is a doctor foran insurance company. The friend in this instance is being examined for eligibility for moreinsurance. The examination reveals some health problems. Should the doctor ignore these for thesake of his or her friend’s needs? In the final situation (Unpa4), the subject is an insider dealing infinancial markets, where a friend will be financially mined unless tipped off by the respondentabout the outcome of a confidential meeting.Achievement Versus Ascription OrientationThe six items for measuring achievement-ascription were designed by Trompenaars (1985) andare freely adapted from measures used by Karl (1965) and by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961).These items were presented in the form of five-point Likert scales with strongly agree andstrongly disagree anchoring the endpoints. The statements were as follows: “The most importantthing in life is to think and act in the ways that best suit the way you really are, even if you don’tget things done” (Achasc 1); “The respect a person gets is highly dependent on the family out ofwhich they come” (Achasc2); “When someone is born, the success they are going to have isalready in the cards, so they might as well accept it and not fight against it” (Achasc3); “A childshould be taught from infancy to be more gentle with women than with men” (Achasc4); “It isimportant for managers to be older than most of their subordinates” (Achasc5); “Older peopleshould be more respected than younger people” (Achasc6).Individualism-Collectivism and Conceptions of Organizational StructureA further 25 questions were devised to measure facets of individualism-collectivism and variousways of conceiving of the organizational structure of business organizations. Several of theindividualism-collectivism items were heavily modified versions of those used by Kluckhohn andStrodtbeck (1961). All these items were phrased in the form of dilemmas, with a dichotomousforced-choice response format.Examples of these dilemmas are given where they prove relevant in the Results section of thearticle. In general terms, the topics covered include the extent of company involvement in the lifeof individual employees; for example, in providing housing or organizing social functions, theworking relationships of subordinates with their superiors, optimal modes of departmentalorganization and job assignment, valued characteristics of managers, ways of dealing withunsatisfactory work of employees, and the nature of contractual obligations.Other MeasuresThe questionnaire included an additional 40 items referring to the other four domains of culturalvaluing postulated by Trompenaars (1985). Data from each of these will be included in thepresent analysis: mean scores on the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale, time perspective,affectivity-neutrality, and preference for specific versus diffuse social relationships. The timeperspective score used here is derived from a procedure used by Cottle (1968). The respondent isasked to list his or her 10 most important life experiences and to indicate whether they fall in thepast, the present, or the future. Scores for affectivity-neutrality and for preference for specificversus diffuse relationships were both derived from different responses to the same fourquestions, which asked directly about preferred type of relationships with others. Scores on thesedimensions are thus not independent of one another. Respondents also reported their sex, age,employer, job function, and educational level.DATA ANALYSISAll items were translated into the required languages. The method of back-translation (e.g.,Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973) was employed for most of the translations. In the few caseswhere it was not, the English and translated versions of the questionnaire were examined andwhere necessary amended by bilingual company representatives. The questionnaires wereadministered to respondents at varying dates between 1982 and 1993, using the language versionsindicated in Table 1. In most countries, subjects were participants in brief training coursesconcerning management in cross-cultural contexts. Questionnaires were completed prior toparticipation in the training.Responses to the 39 relevant questionnaire items were used as the primary basis of the analysis.Although within-subjects data standardization is an increasingly favored procedure in this type ofstudy, this was not done in the present case. There were two reasons for this. First, the forcedchoice response format of almost all items eliminates the risk of cultural variations in the use ofmore or less extreme response categories, which is likely where Liken-type-scale responses areused. Second, the range of questionnaire items included spanned a variety of scales constructedon the basis of hypothesized differences grounded in theory. To standardize across scales wouldbe very likely to eliminate variance that is subst