Four GLOBE dimensions of perceived social norms in 33 countries

Stankov, Lazar

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.005

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Religiosity became the most pronounced aspect of conservatism. In fact, an expanded battery of measures that included both social axioms (i.e., beliefs about the physical, spiritual, or social world that may be regarded as worldviews; Bond et al, 2004) and moral foundations (questions related to harm, fairness, in-group relations, authority, and purity; Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009) in addition to previously studied personality, values, social attitudes, and social norms confirms that more precise labels are "Social Awareness/Morality" for Morality and "Nastiness/Social Dominance" for Nastiness (see Stankov, 2009Stankov, , 2015Stankov, , 2016aStankov, , 2016bStankov & Lee, 2016a;Stankov & Saucier, 2015;. Figure 1 summarizes our findings and detailed item-level information is available in Saucier et al (2015).…”

Section: Psychological Underpinnings: Conservative Syndromementioning

confidence: 81%

“…As can be seen in Figure 1, each of the three components at the second layer contains constructs that belong to the domains of social axioms (Bond et al, 2004;Bou Malham & Saucier, 2014;Stankov & Saucier, 2015) and social norms (House et al, 2004;Stankov, 2015). For example, Nastiness/Social Dominance includes the axioms of Social Cynicism and Fate Control and social norms of Gender (Non)Egalitarianism.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, we checked if six factors of personality-Conscientiousness, Honesty/Propriety, Agreeableness, Resiliency, Extraversion, Originality-can be replicated (see Thalmayer & Saucier, 2014). The same was done for social axioms (see Bou Malham & Saucier, 2014;Stankov & Saucier, 2015), social norms (see Stankov, 2015) and social attitudes, values, and related constructs (see Stankov & Lee, 2016a).…”

Section: Psychological Underpinnings: Conservative Syndromementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conservative Syndrome: Individual and Cross-Cultural Differences

Stankov

2017

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article summarizes findings based on the administration of a large number of psychological scales to participants from over 30 countries. The results suggest the existence of a Conservative Syndrome at both individual and country levels of analysis. There are three main groupings of constructs underlying this syndrome: Religiosity, Nastiness/Social Dominance, and Social Awareness/Morality. The evidence also suggests that countries can be divided into Conservative, In-Between and Liberal psychological continents. Individual differences are more pronounced than cross-cultural differences. Religiosity and Nastiness show the largest between-countries differences. Cross-cultural differences on measures of personality, morality, and values are comparatively small.

show abstract

Section: Psychological Underpinnings: Conservative Syndromementioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Psychological Underpinnings: Conservative Syndromementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conservative Syndrome: Individual and Cross-Cultural Differences

Stankov

2017

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It employs either individuals or countries as units of analysis, carries out factor analyses to establish the main dimensions along which these units differ, establishes factorial invariance, and compares the overall standing of different cultural units on these dimensions. Such an approach has been used in studies of personality (Poortinga, Van de Vijver, & Van Hemert, 2002), social attitudes (Stankov & Lee, under review), values (Bilsky, Janik, & Schwartz, 2011), social axioms (Bou-Malham & Saucier, 2014), and social norms (Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Stankov, 2015). The aims of dimensional analysis are to (a) find out on which psychological dimensions (factors) there exist pronounced country-level differences (see Saucier et al., 2014; Stankov, 2011; Stankov & Lee, 2009) and (b) establish the ranking of particular cultural units (e.g., countries or world regions) on these dimensions (see Stankov, 2007; Stankov, Lee, & van de Vijver, 2014; Stankov & Saucier, 2015).…”

Section: Dimensions Of Cross-cultural Differences Versus Taxonomy Of Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Psychological Atlas of the World With Mixture Modeling

Stankov

Lee

2015

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents findings based on the outcomes of research conducted with 8,883 participants from 33 countries. It employs mixture modeling (latent profile analysis) to classify countries into latent classes. The country-level analyses are based on three social attitudes factor scores of Nastiness, Religiosity, and Morality. The results indicate that the main sources of cross-cultural differences are with respect to a broadly defined Conservatism/Liberalism. Three groups of societies—that is, “psychological continents”—appear to exist in the world today. They are as follows: (a) liberal European countries plus Canada and Australia; (b) conservative countries from South and South-East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America; and (c) all other countries, including the United States, Russia, and China, that are in between liberal and conservative groups. In addition, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, cognitive test performance, and governance indicators were found to be low in the most conservative group and high in the most liberal group.

show abstract

“…2016; Bender and Chasiotis 2011; Bilsky et al 2015; Bilsky et al 2010; Boer and Fischer 2013;Caprara et al 2017;Cieciuch et al 2013;Wet et al 2019;Fischer and Schwartz 2011;Güngör et al 2012;He et al 2017;Holtschlag et al 2013;Liem et al 2011;Lilleoja et al 2016;Robinson 2013;Rudnev et al 2018;Sandy et al 2014;Sanrı and Goodwin 2013;Schiefer 2013;Schiefer et al 2010;Schwartz et al 2001;Simón et al 2017;Sørensen et al 2012;Stanley et al 2015;Tulviste et al 2014;Vecchione et al 2012; Vyrost et al al. 2007;Dickson et al 2012;Dorfman et al 2012;House et al 2013; House and Hanges 2004;Kabasakal et al 2012;Mendenhall et al 2012;Mittal and Dorfman 2012;Stankov 2015;Steers et al 2012;Takahashi et al 2012;Wang et al 2012 Other leadership studies similar to GLOBE:Bangara et al 2012;Beleska-Spasova et al 2012;Caligiuri and Tarique 2012;Davila and Elvira 2012;Efrat and Shoham 2012;Youssef and Luthans 2012;Zander et al 2012)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Cultural Values: A Meta-Analysis of Major Quantitative Studies in the Last Decade (2010–2020)

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2010, scholars have made major contributions to cross-cultural research, especially regarding similarities and differences across world regions and countries in people’s values, beliefs, and morality. This paper accumulates and analyzes extant multi-national and quantitative studies of these facets of global culture. The paper begins with a summary of the modern history of cross-cultural research, then systematically reviews major empirical studies published since 2010, and next analyzes extant approaches to interpret how the constructs of belief, morality, and values have been theorized and operationalized. The analysis reveals that the field of cross-cultural studies remains dominated by Western approaches, especially studies developed and deployed from the United States and Western Europe. While numerous surveys have been translated and employed for data collection in countries beyond the U.S. and Western Europe, several countries remain under-studied, and the field lacks approaches that were developed within the countries of interest. The paper concludes by outlining future directions for the study of cross-cultural research. To progress from the colonialist past embedded within cross-cultural research, in which scholars from the U.S. and Western Europe export research tools to other world regions, the field needs to expand to include studies locally developed and deployed within more countries and world regions.

show abstract

Four GLOBE dimensions of perceived social norms in 33 countries

Cited by 16 publications

References 20 publications

Conservative Syndrome: Individual and Cross-Cultural Differences

Conservative Syndrome: Individual and Cross-Cultural Differences

Toward a Psychological Atlas of the World With Mixture Modeling

Cross-Cultural Values: A Meta-Analysis of Major Quantitative Studies in the Last Decade (2010–2020)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About