26.11.2012 Views

comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

comparative value priorities of chinese and new zealand

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Individualism/Collectivism<br />

I’ll now test the Individualism/Collectivism hypothesis,<br />

Hypothesis: Individualism/Collectivism validation: The New Zeal<strong>and</strong><br />

sample will score significantly higher means for the Power,<br />

Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation, <strong>and</strong> Self-Direction subdimensions<br />

than the Guangzhou sample, <strong>and</strong> significantly lower on<br />

the Benevolence, Tradition <strong>and</strong> Conformity sub-dimensions.<br />

In the Chart <strong>and</strong> Table in Figures 5.36 <strong>and</strong> 5.37, we see that for the hypothesis<br />

concerning Individualism/Collectivism tendencies, using r<strong>and</strong>om samples <strong>of</strong><br />

businesspeople, the New Zeal<strong>and</strong> sample rankings are relatively atypical <strong>of</strong> an<br />

Individualist society by Schwartz’ specifications, with the Guangzhou sample ranking<br />

the motivational <strong>value</strong> dimensions <strong>of</strong> Power, Self-Direction, <strong>and</strong> Achievement higher<br />

than the New Zeal<strong>and</strong> sample. Comparing Schwartz’ definition <strong>of</strong><br />

Individualism/Collectivism with my results, results from neither sample are consistent<br />

with a Collectivist society:<br />

Dimension New Zeal<strong>and</strong> Sample Guangzhou City sample<br />

Power GZ mean much higher<br />

Achievement Low rank, centred means not significantly different<br />

Hedonism Very low rank, centred means not significantly different<br />

Stimulation NZ mean much higher<br />

Self-Direction Mid-range rank, not significantly different<br />

Given that H<strong>of</strong>stede (2001) <strong>and</strong> House et al. (2004) both indicate that New Zeal<strong>and</strong> has<br />

higher mean scores for Individualism than China, it appears that Schwartz’ dimensions<br />

might measure something different than those theories when it comes to<br />

Individualism/Collectivism.<br />

Confucian Values<br />

I’ll now test the hypothesis concerning Confucian Values,<br />

Hypothesis: Confucian Values: Means for dimensions <strong>of</strong> individual<br />

level <strong>value</strong>s Universalism, Benevolence, Conformity, Tradition, <strong>and</strong><br />

Security will be higher than the remaining five for the Guangzhou,<br />

China, sample.<br />

257

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!