OBJETIVO ESPECÍFICO II: DETERMINAR LA CONFORMACIÓN DE LA ESTRUCTURA Y CARACTERÍSTICAS DE LA UNIÓN DE HECHO

While the first type of studies were searching the value structure within one culture mostly with American subjects, this second type of studies explored the possible universal value dimensions among different cultures in order to map cultural variation along these fundamental dimensions. To meet the statistical requirement and to claim confidently that the findings are universal, the studies have to include a sufGcient number of cultures instead of simply two culture comparisons. It is not surprising that very few multicultural studies of values have been done (Zavalloni, 1980). Of those available, most are theory- driven (e.g., the work of Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961), and hence impose a priori groupings on the results. The few remaining adopted the atheoretical approach, using statistical methods for determining the underlying value dimensions in order to "avoid premature foreclosure on our conceptual options" (Bond, 1988, p. 1010). The focus of this section is the latter approach.

In any atheoretical approach data are usually collected fi"om individuals within each society, such as responses on questionnaires. The society units in these approach were usually referred to different countries. There are three ways to bring these data into statistical methods;

1). Within-society analyses. The same statistical methods are applied to each society; individual data belonging to the same society are brought into the analysis together. Comparing the results of each society will reveal the universal aspects among all societies and the unique parts of each culture. Although

it is precisely these findings of within-society analyses which are of interest from a cultural viewpoint, almost no athecwetical studies of values conducted in this way.

One exception is Morris's (1956) study. He administered the Ways to Live to male college students in United States, India and China. Three factor analyses were made based on each country's data. Morris reported a five-factor solution for American data; (1) Social restraint and self-control, (2) Enjoyment and progress in action, (3) Withdrawal and self-sufiBciency, (4) Receptivity and sympathetic concern, and (5) Self-indulgence. A similar solution was reported for Indian data. There were slight but explicable variations in the finding resulting from Chinese data. Morris (1956) concluded the five dimensions as universal dimensions by using a musical metaphor: "it is as if persons in various cultures have in common five major tones in the musical scales on which they compose different melodies" (p. 185). However, data from only three nations and male subjects are not sufficient enough to support his conclusion.

2). Between-society analysis. The statistical analysis is based on the mean scores of the variables for each society or on percentages in the case of yes-no variables. The findings o f between-society relations are not at all the same as the within-society relations (Hofstede, 1980). And because the analysis o f data is at the societal level, its results have no necessary parallels with individual level relations (Bond,

1988).

Hofstede's (1980) study is a remarkable example of treating data in this way. He performed a comparative study of work-related values which covered a large number o f nations (cultures). He administered his work-related value measure to over 100,000 employees of different subsidiaries of a large multinational business corporation in 40 nations. Hofstede used the standardized means of each items from each culture to perform factor analysis, and he named this procedure as ecological factor analysis. He obtained four cultural-level dimensions: (1) Power distance, (2) Uncertainty avoidance, (3) Individualism, (4) Masculinity.

Ng et al (1982) administered a modified version of the Rokeach Value Survey to psychology students in nine Asian and Pacific countries. They subjected the data to a discriminate analysis at the culture-level that yielded four discriminate functions. To validate Hofstede's four dimensions, Hofstede and Bond (1984) reanalyzed Ng et al's data for six overiapping countries through an ecological factor analysis

60

that produced five factors. A correlation analysis revealed that each of Hofstede's dimensions are discretely and significantly correlated with the four of five factors in Ng et al's data.

Another interesting example is done by the Chinese Culture Connection (1987), a group of researchers led by Michael H. Bond. To balance the Western theoretical ethnocentrism, they developed an "Eastern" instrument, the Chinese Value Survey, and administered to university students in 22 countries around the world. Following the same procedure of data treatment used by Hofstede, they subjected the data to an ecological factor analysis which yielded four cultural level dimensions: (1) Integration, (2) Confiician work dynamism, (3) Human-heartedness, and (4) Moral discipline. A following correlation analysis based on data fi"om 20 overlapped countries in Hofstede's and this studies showed that three of the factors correlated at high levels with three of Hofstede's four dimensions. The second factor, Confiician work dynamism, was unrelated to any of Hofstede's; this fact, according to the authors, maybe suggest another "oriental" dimension.

Although there are more studies applying this way to treat data, their findings often appear puzzling and are subject to considerable interpretative debate (Triandis, 1982; Hofstede & Bond, 1984). Furthermore, the resulting culture-level relations are not suitable to apply to explain individual dififerences. Because of these reasons, and because he considered that psychologists are much more comfortable at the individual level of analysis, Bond (1988) used another way to analyze data which we now turn to.

3). Deculturing global analysis. Global analysis is to bring all data together into analysis regardless of which culture (society) they are fi’om. But, in doing so the universal pattern of correlation among the variables will be distorted by cultural positioning effect (Bond, 1988). To eliminate this cultural positioning effect. Bond (1988) "decultured" data in the first place by standardizing responses to each variable within each culture separately, so the cultural confound (i.e., the cross-cultural correlation) is removed because the average score for any two variables in each culture is zero. He then subjected the data to a factor analysis which will reveal the average pattern of relation between any two variables across all individuals regardless of culture.

Bond (1988) used this procedure to reanalyzed data fi'om two multicultural studies of values in order to find universal dimensions of individual variation. The two studies have been mentioned above; one is Ng et al's (1982) which employed the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS), and the other is the Chinese Culture Connection's (1987) which employed the Chinese Value Survey (CVS). He found two factors

emerged from the CVS, four from the RVS. A correlation analysis showed that there was one significant correlation between the second CVS factor and the third RVS factor. The author concluded that his research yielded five etic dimensions of values, one unique to the CVS, three unique to the RVS, and one common to both.

However, one should be cautious about this study since the total variance accounted by the factors were quite small, 13.8% for the CVS, and 25.2% for the RVS. The major reward o f this kind of structural approach is to fiind some universal dimensions to compare individual differences on values at the individual level parsimoniously. But many cultural unique value structures were filtered out and many value items were dropped in the overall analysis. It may be just like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

The universality obtained in this atheoretical approach is the relationship among some value items which are common across all cultures, no matter in culture-level or individual-level dimensions. However, culture-level dimensions and individual-level dimensions do NOT correspond to each other logically and empirically. Moreover, these dimensions only include part of value items. Value items which mark culturally idiosyncratic patterns of relations filter out during statistical analyses, and thus this approach can not show the whole picture of the content of values.