Humane Orientation as a New Cultural Dimension of the GLOBE Project: A Validation Study of the GLOBE Scale and Out-Group Humane Orientation in 25 Countries

We validate, extend, and empirically and theoretically criticize the cultural dimension of humane orientation of the project GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program). Theoretically, humane orientation is not just a one-dimensionally positive concept about being caring, altruistic, and kind to others as discussed by Kabasakal and Bodur (2004), but there is also a certain ambivalence to this concept. We suggest differentiating humane orientation toward in-group members from humane orientation toward out-group members. A multicountry construct validation study used student samples from 25 countries that were either high or low in humane orientation (N = 876) and studied their relation to the traditional GLOBE scale and other cultural-level measures (agreeableness, religiosity, authoritarianism, and welfare state score). Findings revealed a strong correlation between humane orientation and agreeableness, welfare state score, and religiosity. Out-group humane orientation proved to be the more relevant subfacet of the original humane orientation construct, suggesting that future research on humane orientation should make use of this measure instead of the vague original scale. The ambivalent character of out-group humane orientation is displayed in its positive correlation to high authoritarianism. Patriotism was used as a control variable for noncritical acceptance of one’s society but did not change the correlations. Our findings are discussed as an example of how rigid expectations and a lack of tolerance for diversity may help explain the ambivalent nature of humane orientation

Perceived malleability of self versus the world and its impact on youths’ control orientation and well-being in the US, Germany, and India

Primary control is defined as changing the world to fit the self, while secondary control is defined as changing the self to fit the world. To understand why different individuals prefer different kinds of control processes, we proposed a research project looking at US, German and Indian young adults. We hypothesize that theories of self and the world (fixed vs. malleable; Dweck, 1999) affect the prevailing mode of control used. Furthermore, adolescents’ cultural background is assumed to affect their self-world theories as well as the adaptiveness of specific modes of control. For example, in the US, where the self is tended to be seen as fixed and the world as malleable, primary control prevails and is more adaptive than secondary control while the reverse is expected for India. We present the theoretical outline and methodology of the study as well as first results.

Situational adaptiveness of control orientation mediates relation between fixed-world view and youth well-being in three cultures

When proposing primary control (changing the world to fit self)/secondary control (changing self to fit the world) theory, Weisz et al. (1984) argued for the importance of the “serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can” (p. 967), and the wisdom to choose the right control strategy that fits the context. Although the dual processes of control theory generated hundreds of empirical studies, most of them focused on the dichotomy of PC and SC, with none of these tapped into the critical concept: individuals’ ability to know when to use what. This project addressed this issue by using scenario questions to study the impact of situationally adaptive control strategies on youth well-being. To understand the antecedents of youths’ preference for PC or SC, we also connected PCSC theory with Dweck’s implicit theory about the changeability of the world. We hypothesized that youths’ belief about the world’s changeability impacts how difficult it was for them to choose situationally adaptive control orientation, which then impacts their well-being. This study included adolescents and emerging adults between the ages of 18 and 28 years (Mean = 20.87 years) from the US (n = 98), China (n = 100), and Switzerland (n = 103). Participants answered a questionnaire including a measure of implicit theories about the fixedness of the external world, a scenario-based measure of control orientation, and several measures of well-being. Preliminary analyses of the scenario-based control orientation measures showed striking cross-cultural similarity of preferred control responses: while for three of the six scenarios primary control was the predominately chosen control response in all cultures, for the other three scenarios secondary control was the predominately chosen response. This suggested that youths across cultures are aware that some situations call for primary control, while others demand secondary control. We considered the control strategy winning the majority of the votes to be the strategy that is situationally adaptive. The results of a multi-group structural equation mediation model with the extent of belief in a fixed world as independent variable, the difficulties of carrying out the respective adaptive versus non-adaptive control responses as two mediating variables and the latent well-being variable as dependent variable showed a cross-culturally similar pattern of effects: a belief in a fixed world was significantly related to higher difficulties in carrying out the normative as well as the non-normative control response, but only the difficulty of carrying out the normative control response (be it primary control in situations where primary control is normative or secondary control in situations where secondary control is normative) was significantly related to a lower reported well-being (while the difficulty of carrying out the non-normative response was unrelated to well-being). While previous research focused on cross-cultural differences on the choice of PC or SC, this study shed light on the universal necessity of applying the right kind of control to fit the situation.

Family Models of In(ter)dependence: Cultural Change and the Question of Universal Needs

I will start by discussing some aspects of Kagitcibasi’s Theory of Family Change: its current empirical status and, more importantly, its focus on universal human needs and the consequences of this focus. Family Change Theory’s focus on the universality of the basic human needs of autonomy and relatedness and its culture-level emphasis on cultural norms and family values as reflecting a culture’s capacity for fulfilling its members’ respective needs shows that the theory advocates balanced cultural norms of independence and interdependence. As a normative theory it therefore postulates the necessity of a synthetic family model of emotional interdependence as an alternative to extreme models of total independence and total interdependence. Generalizing from this I will sketch a theoretical model where a dynamic and dialectical process of the fit between individual and culture and between culture and universal human needs and related social practices is central. I will discuss this model using a recent cross-cultural project on implicit theories of self/world and primary/secondary control orientations as an example. Implications for migrating families and acculturating individuals are also discussed.