comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

Figure 5.24. Raw Score Rankings of SVS Dimensions from Shenzhen City China
Studies
Lee & Soutar China Littrell & SZ-Entrep. Self- SZ-Entrep.
(2009)
Mean Montgomery
Made
Incubator
N=224 (2010)
N=200
N=130
Security 5.17 Security 5.00 4.90
Benevolence 5.03 Achievement 4.60 4.60
Universalism 4.99 Conformity 4.50 4.40
Self-direction 4.93 Self-Direction 4.30 4.30
Conformity 4.86 Benevolence 4.30 4.30
Achievement 4.86 Universalism 4.10 4.00
Grand Means 4.70 3.85 3.83
Hedonism 4.65 Hedonism 3.3 3.30
Power 4.40 Power 3.1 3.30
Tradition 4.10 Stimulation 2.8 2.70
Stimulation 4.04 Tradition 2.5 2.50
The preceding comparisons give confidence that the studies of businesspeople in South
China and New Zealand are yielding comparable results in terms of the relative
rankings of raw score means. The most recent studies of SVS dimension rankings in
China and New Zealand indicate,
High ranks in both societies: Low ranks in both
societies:
Security (large difference, 1 st in China, 6 th in New Hedonism
Zealand)
Benevolence Power
Universalism Tradition
Self-direction Stimulation
Conformity
Achievement
COMPARABILITY OF SAMPLES
I will now investigate the comparability of the samples from the two societies in this
study. An objective of the investigation is to identify any important covariables that
need to be included in analyses.
The distribution of size of businesses from which participants were drawn is in Figure
5.25. The terms Large, Medium, and Small were employed, rather than actual number
242