comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

Individual and culture-level analyses will yield both complementary and contrasting
results. Earley (1993) found that individualists (who tend to have an internal locus of
control) and collectivists (who tend to have an external, in-group oriented locus of
control) differ in response to working in groups and alone. The performance of
individualists who thought they were working in an in-group or an out-group was lower
(implying more “free-riding” or “social loafing”) than the performance of individualists
working alone, whereas collectivists’ performance was lower (implying more “freeriding”
or “social loafing”) in an individual or out-group context than in an in-group
context. Earley measured the values and self-concepts of the particular respondents in
his sample, rather than relying on Hofstede’s culture-level characterizations of the
nations that were studied. This enabled them to draw valid individual-level conclusions
without falling victim to the ecological fallacy, even though the guiding concept for the
study (level of Collectivism) is a culture-level concept.
Level of Analysis in This Study
This study investigates the relationships of an individual’s cultural values and an
individual’s preferred sets of leader behaviours for two samples of businesspeople, one
from New Zealand and one from Guangzhou, China. The comparisons will relate
relative rankings of importance of values and kinds of leader behaviour between the two
groups. The levels of analysis are the influence of individual values within cultures on
preferred leader behaviour in business organisations.
METHODOLOGY IN CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH
Ratner and Hui (2003) point out that although cross-cultural psychology has advanced
our understanding of cultural influences in psychology, the contribution is marred by
theoretical and methodological flaws. These flaws include misunderstanding cultural
issues and the manner in which they bear on psychology; obscuring the relation between
biology, culture, and psychology; inadequately defining and measuring cultural factors
and psychological phenomena; erroneously analysing data and drawing faulty
conclusions about the cultural character of psychology. Their article identifies
fundamental theoretical and methodological errors that have appeared in prominent
cross-cultural psychological research. Their suggestions for overcoming them are
followed in my work. The fact that theoretical and methodological errors are committed
192