All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Relational Models and Horizontal & Vertical Individualism-Collectivism:
Unformatted Document Text:  Relational Models 17 AR, as predicted. In other words, it appears that, at least for friendship, each cultural type was most strongly with one relational model (i.e., HC = CS; VC = AR; HI = EM; & VI = MP). Cultural differences between Americans and Singaporeans Hypothesis 2 predicted that Americans were horizontal individualistic and that Japanese were vertical collectivistic, respectively, and that their use of relational models would vary accordingly. The hypotheses that Americans were HI, whereas Singaporeans were VC were tested by a 2 (nationality) by 4 (cultural type) MANOVA. Results showed statistically significant main effects for culture type (F[3, 840] = 210.53, p < .001, 2 = .43) and nationality (F[3, 280] = 3.89, p < .05, 2 = .02), but not for the culture type by nationality interaction (F[3, 840] = 1.69, p = .17). Post-hoc comparisons within cultures showed that Americans endorsed HI and HC equally highly, followed by VI and VC. Singaporeans endorsed HI most, followed by HC, VI, and VC, respectively (see Table 2). In other words, in regard to cultural type, participants from both nations were almost indistinguishable. Thus, H2a and H2c, which predicted that Americans are HI and that Singaporeans are VC, respectively, were only partially supported for Americans, and not at all supported for Singaporeans. H2 also predicted different uses of relational models by Americans and Singaporeans in their interpersonal relationships and were tested by a 2 x 2 x 4 (nationality by relationship type by relationship model) MANOVA. Statistically significant multivariate Fs were observed for all main effects and the two-way interactions, as well as for the three-way interaction (F[3, 278] = 37.17, p < .001, 2 = .29). In other words, there were differences in the extent to which relational models were used in interpersonal relationships, these

Authors: Koerner, Ascan.
first   previous   Page 17 of 32   next   last



background image
Relational Models
17
AR, as predicted. In other words, it appears that, at least for friendship, each cultural type
was most strongly with one relational model (i.e., HC = CS; VC = AR; HI = EM; & VI =
MP).
Cultural differences between Americans and Singaporeans
Hypothesis 2 predicted that Americans were horizontal individualistic and that
Japanese were vertical collectivistic, respectively, and that their use of relational models
would vary accordingly. The hypotheses that Americans were HI, whereas Singaporeans
were VC were tested by a 2 (nationality) by 4 (cultural type) MANOVA. Results showed
statistically significant main effects for culture type (F[3, 840] = 210.53, p < .001,
2
= .43)
and nationality (F[3, 280] = 3.89, p < .05,
2
= .02), but not for the culture type by
nationality interaction (F[3, 840] = 1.69, p = .17). Post-hoc comparisons within cultures
showed that Americans endorsed HI and HC equally highly, followed by VI and VC.
Singaporeans endorsed HI most, followed by HC, VI, and VC, respectively (see Table 2).
In other words, in regard to cultural type, participants from both nations were almost
indistinguishable. Thus, H2a and H2c, which predicted that Americans are HI and that
Singaporeans are VC, respectively, were only partially supported for Americans, and not at
all supported for Singaporeans.
H2 also predicted different uses of relational models by Americans and Singaporeans in
their interpersonal relationships and were tested by a 2 x 2 x 4 (nationality by relationship
type by relationship model) MANOVA. Statistically significant multivariate Fs were
observed for all main effects and the two-way interactions, as well as for the three-way
interaction (F[3, 278] = 37.17, p < .001,
2
= .29). In other words, there were differences in
the extent to which relational models were used in interpersonal relationships, these


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 17 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.