Cultural and individual differences in self‐rating behavior: an extension and refinement of the cultural relativity hypothesis

Abstract

SummaryThis study examined the relationships between culture, individual attributes, and self-rating behavior among 1,786 university students in Canada, Hong Kong, Taiwan, mainland China, and Japan, and in doing so extended and refined the cultural relativity hypothesis. It explored the difference between vertical and horizontal individualists in self-rating behavior, and examined the mediating effects of two individual attributes, self-enhancement propensity and general self-efficacy in the relationship between individualism and self-rating behavior. The results confirmed that individualism is the cultural driver for self-rating leniency, and that the individual-level assessment of individualism is a stronger predictor of self-rating leniency than are culture-level differences. Vertical individualism was found to be positively related to selfenhancement propensity, which in turn was positively related to self-rating. Whereas, horizontal individualism was positively related to general self-efficacy, which in turn had a positive relationship with self-rating. We discuss the implications of the results for academic research and practical management.

Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review

“…Farh & Cheng, 1997;Yik, Bond, & Paulhus, 1998). Xie, Roy, and Chen (2006) expanded this investigation by measuring not only country-level culture but individual perceptions of their individualist/collectivist orientations. Using a sample of university students from Canada, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Japan, they found that individualists were more likely to inflate ratings of cognitive ability and cognitive performance when actual levels of cognitive ability were controlled.…”

Perceptions of Mobile Phone Use in Public: The Roles of Individualism, Collectivism, and Focus of the Setting

“…Individualism and collectivism are actually separate constructs that may also contain multiple subconstructs. Originally treated as opposite sides of one continuum (Hofstede, 1980), subsequent research demonstrates that individualism and collectivism are distinct dimensions that can independently influence values and behavior (Triandis, 1995;Triandis & Suh, 2002;Xie, Roy, & Chen, 2006). Triandis and Gelfand (1998) have argued that each of these constructs can be further distinguished along vertical and horizontal axes: ''Horizontal patterns assume that one self is more or less like every other self.…”

“…By contrast, vertical patterns consist of hierarchies, and one self is different from other selves'' (p. 119). So, there may be horizontal and vertical varieties of each construct, although some measurement scales have resulted in only a two-factor solution (Earley & Gibson, 1998;Xie et al, 2006).…”

“…Items used in this study to assess I-C were developed by Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, and Gelfand (1995) and later modified by Triandis and Gelfand (1998), who reported reliability alphas ranging from .73 to .82. According to Xie et al (2006), this particular scale is ''commonly used to measure individualism and collectivism'' (p. 350). The instrument was designed to assess four factors: vertical individualism, vertical collectivism, horizontal individualism, and horizontal collectivism.…”

Cultural Adaptations to Environmental Variability: An Evolutionary Account of East–West Differences

“…In one study, individualism was correlated with self-rated cognitive ability, r=0.38, self-rated cognitive performance, r=0.23, self-enhancement propensity, r=0.42, and general self-efficacy, r= 0.35. Collectivism was correlated with self-rated cognitive ability at 0.25, self-rated cognitive performance at 0.10, self-enhancement propensity at 0.12, and general selfefficacy at 0.27 (Xie et al 2006). In another study, self-esteem was correlated with independence at 0.42 and with interdependence at −0.14 (Singelis et al 1999).…”