Download Comparison of American and Turkish University Students: Universalism & Cultural Awareness and more Summaries International Business in PDF only on Docsity!
Universalism, Particularism and cultural self-awareness:
a comparison of American and Turkish university students
Donald Tompkins Koç University
Diane Galbraith Slippery Rock University
Patricia Tompkins Koç University
Abstract
Universalism implies that correct behavior can be defined and always applies, while particularism suggests that relationships are more important than abstract social codes. The United States is generally considered universalistic, and Turkey particularistic. In the current study, American and Turkish students first reacted to a hypothetical situation in order to determine their location on the universalist-particularist dimension. The students were then asked how their reactions may reflect their cultural values, in order to determine the relative levels of Turkish vs. American cultural self- awareness. The American students scored higher in partıcularism and the Turkish students higher in universalism, which may reflect the Turkish cultural value of fairness. Turkish students had a greater awareness of the cultural basis for their attitudes. Cultural self-awareness is an important factor in determining business and economic success, and should be encouraged through university education.
Keywords: universalism, particularism, culture, values, self-awareness
Introduction - Universalism-Particularism
Universalism and particularism are value standards that may guide behavior of persons or of whole cultures (Smith, Dugan and Trompenaars, 1996). The distinction has been made since at least the early 1950’s (Parsons and Shils, 1951), and has gained visibility with the work of Trompenaars and his associates (Smith, Dugan and Tompenaars, 1996; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998). Universalism implies that correct behavior can be defined and always applies, while particularism suggests that relationships come ahead of abstract social codes. Much of the research on universalism vs. particularism comes from the USA, and is influenced by American cultural preferences. American researchers often associate universalism with modernization and sophisticated business practice, and particularism with less developed rural societies in which everyone knows everyone personally (Trompenaars and Hampden Turner, 1998, p. 33). In addition, the American (and “western”) perspective tends to view particularistic decisions as being corrupt and immoral (Lumby, 2006). Although this culturally biased view has been largely corrected by Trompenaars’ research, much remains to be done to contrast individuals and cultures on this dimension. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) regard the United States as a “guided missile” culture. Such cultures are egalitarian, impersonal and task oriented, which is consistent with a “universalistic” value system. Turkey, on the other hand, is a “family” culture, in which people are valued before roles, relationships are close, and the leader is regarded as a caring “father.” This appears to be more consistent with a particularistic value system.
Cultural Self-Awareness
There is little doubt that cultural awareness is an increasingly important aspect of contemporary business. While there are many viewpoints in this area, psychologists have started to converge around a three component model of cultural competence: (1) awareness, (2) competence, and (3) skills (Fowers and Davidov, 2006). While this model was developed by and for psychologists, it would seem to apply to anyone who interacts with persons from a different cultural background. Competence and skills in such interactions depend largely upon an awareness of one’s own cultural values and those of persons from other cultures. According to Fowers and Davidov (2006), the process of becoming aware of one’s own values, biases and limitations involves cultural self-exploration, through which we learn that “our perspectives are limited, partial and relative to our own backgrounds.... [W]e must give up the comforting ethnocentrism, sense of cultural superiority, and unrecognized privilege that is often part of our untutored cultural outlook” (p. 585).
Subjects
Subjects in the current study were 130 American university students enrolled in an Organizational Behavior class and 42 Turkish university students enrolled in an English language class. Both American and Turkish classes had roughly equal numbers
Table 1 Particularistic vs. Universalistic Responses Of Turkish and American Students
Response (^) Turkish students American students Totals Particularistic 8 (19%) 85 (65%) 93 Universalistic 34 (81%) 45 (35%) 72 Totals 42 130 172
As seen in the table, 34 of the 42 Turkish students (81%) responded in a universalistic manner (choosing not to “hedge” the restaurant review for a friend), while only 45 of the 130 American students (35%) responded this way. Conversely, 65% of the American students, but only 19% of the Turkish students, responded in a particularistic manner.
The data was then analyzed using the Vassar Statistics Package (http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/tab2x2.html). The phi coefficient (for correlation between two dichotomous variables) was .40, indicating a moderately strong and highly significant (p<.0001) correlation between nationality (Turkish vs. American) and cultural values (particularistic vs. universalistic). These results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Data Analysis Using the Vassar Statistics Package
Data Entry
X Expected Cell Frequencies per (^0 1) Totals Null Hypothesis
Y
8 85 93 22.71 70.
34 45 79 19.29 59.
Totals
42 130 172
Chi-Square The Yates value is corrected for continuity; the Pearson Phi Yates Pearson^ value is not. Both probability estimates are non-directional. +0.4 25.61 27.
P
<. <.
Fisher Exact Probability Test: T
P
one-tailed
1.2434646065357668e-
two-tailed
1.3635940971945942e-
Results of the more qualitative, open-ended, part of the study support the conclusion that, while both American and Turkish students have some awareness of their cultural values, there is some tendency to inflate the relationship between their cultural and their personal values, especially among the American students (see Table 3). For example, an American student who chose to “hedge” the review wrote that “...we need to help her out in the end. This shows how our culture is relationship oriented.” Another American student, who chose not to hedge, wrote “My values of friendship should not interfere with business, and I think our culture agrees with that too.” Similarly, a Turkish student who chose to hedge wrote “I think that in our culture looking after your friend is common and almost everybody does it,” and several who chose not to hedge cited truthfulness as an important aspect of Turkish culture. There were also several Turkish students, however, who indicated that they would not hedge even though this kind of behavior was characteristic of the Turkish culture. For example, one student who chose not to hedge wrote “...in my culture you must protect your friend but I don’t think it is true. I have responsibility for my job so I must do my work correctly.” Table 3 Typical Turkish and American Statements on Personal and Cultural Values
Understanding that personal and cultural values may differ:
Incorrectly assuming correspondence between personal and cultural values: A Turkish student writes that “...in my culture you must protect your friend but I don’t think it is true. I have responsibility for my job so I must do my work correctly.”
An American student writes that “...we need to help her out in the end. This shows how our culture is relationship oriented.”
actually less true in Turkey than it is in the United States, at least as far as certain issues are concerned. The current study also suggests that persons in other societies, such as Turkey, may have higher cultural self-awareness than Americans. As a result: (1) they may have a competitive advantage over Americans when dealing with other countries, and (2) their possibly negative stereotypes of Americans as being provincial and ethnocentric may be reinforced. Although based on limited data from 180 American students in a single university, the results of this study are consistent with other research that suggests that the American educational system should place more stress on cultural differences. Coverage of the work of such investigators as Hofstede (1980; 1991) in most management and organizational behavior texts is a step in this direction. Trying to give American students and faculty foreign exchange opportunities, and attracting more students from abroad to American classrooms, would be other positive steps. Teaching a diversity course such as one described by Heuberger (1999), and having management classes with exercises and role plays such as the one described in the present study, seem warranted. A modified and abridged version of an exercise developed by Roysircar (2004), which focuses even more directly on cultural self-awareness, is as follows:
- What is your background? You may refer to your culture, ethnicity, race , or multicultural/multiethnic background.
- What are the values of the cultural group that have influenced you the most?
- What are your personal differences from your cultural or primary reference group?
- What are your feelings about being a member of your cultural or primary reference group?
- When you’re with someone different from you, how do you find common ground to prevent cultural conflict?
Future Studies
More research is needed in this area, especially studies that (1) expand Turkish and American sample sizes, (2) include more measures of univeralism/particularism, and (3) quantify the cultural self-awareness dimension. The fact that Turkey is currently a candidate for EU membership makes it especially important to understand the values of the Turkish people, and how they may be similar or different from our own.
References
Brodbeck, F. C. & Frese, M. (2000). Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries_. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology_ , Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 1-29. Fowers, B. J. & Davidov, B. J. (2006). The virtue of multiculturalism: Personal transformation, character, and openness to other. American Psychologist, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp.581-594. Heuberger, B. (1999). Strength through cultural diversity. College Teaching, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 107-113. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work- related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Karakaya, S. (2004). A comparative study: English and Turkish teachers’ conceptions of their professional responsibility_. Educational Studies_ , Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 195-216. Lumby, J. ( 2006). International perspectives on leadership and management. Management in Education , Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 7-10. Parsons, T. & Shils, E.A. (Eds.) (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Roysircar, G. (2004). Cultural self-awareness assessment: Practice examples from psychology training. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , Vol. 35, No. 6, pp.658-666. Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars. F. (1996). National culture and the values of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations_. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,_ Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 231-264. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in global business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
