a 1...: 1F?
1.. .v .

é.
mm... ....H.
v
«5.23
. . - a a, flu. _
\A (I. n: A l
9": V

.:.1x.
:.I
.9. x31.

 

.

? a: .

. it; . x
0.33.”!

‘ b. I

.m

. :94. 1.1.. <
”this: 1'4

i
.t {5.5 ..
nu. vuufigzgnmnm. a...
5... 39% ¢ _
.3 5L
0 BC) I
thwnmm.

9
. ’ {£15

£3. \. ,
nhfi.d....9..fl.3..
I.

2 .21. .fi
Km»
fix»: 23.... $41 333.....w $295.. . .. , V flumufiguu. , , kwffifflm , .. , ‘ , A s .. ..

. 5. :a

 

HICHIGAN STATE U

mum1111mmWit/HmWWII/Mi

3 1293 01770 9134

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

CULTURE AND THE EXPERIENCE OF INTERDEPENDENCE
presented by

Ileana P. Rodriguez-Maldonado

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D 0 degree in PSYChO log

74 Ma‘f/L

Major professor

Date May 14. 1999

MSUi: an Affirmative Aaron/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

498M660”

 

 

 

 

 

gm 2 4 an?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo W14

 

CULTURE AND THE EXPERIENCE OF INTERDEPENDENCE
By

Ileana P. Rodriguez-Maldonado

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1999

ABSTRACT
CULTURE AND THE EXPERIENCE OF INTERDEPENDENCE
By

Ileana P. Rodriguez-Maldonado

This is a cross-cultural study of values and interdependence. The two cultures
studied were the United States and Puerto Rico. A preliminary comparative study of
values showed that Puerto Ricans value conformity more than Americans, while
Americans value achievement more than Puerto Ricans. Based on the preliminary study,
an experiment was designed to re-assess the cultural values, expose participants to
different levels of interdependence, measure their attitudes about interdependence, and
measure their performance in an interdependent task, with the expectation of relating
values, attitudes and behaviors in a theoretical model consistent with Social Adaptation
Theory. The results showed that the better predictor of interdependence attitudes was the
level of situational interdependence. Culture was also found to influence the

interdependence attitudes.

ii

To Raul.
To lafamilia.

To Borinquen.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The endeavor of cross—cultural research requires the interest and generosity of
countless people. I am extremely grateful to fellow Social Psychologist, Professor Janet
Bonilla, from the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, who let me use her laboratory,
research assistants, and students for participants. Her generosity and that of her research
assistants made this project possible. My special thanks to the staff at the Department of
Social Sciences at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, who facilitated my data
collection at their campus in any way they could.

At Michigan State University, the continued support of the Social and Personality
Psychology faculty was invaluable. From the Industrial and Organizational Psychology
interest group, I must thank Steve Kozlowski, whose thoughtful and straight forward
feedback would take me in new directions, and would invariably result in new learning
opportunities.

My thanks to Norbert L. Kerr, for his trust in that this project could and should be
done, for his support through the years of work and long distance, and for all the shared
knowledge.

Finally, I would like to recognize the invaluable support of Raul Marrero, my dear
husband, for pushing me to do the best work I could do and for not thinking twice about

the thousands of our dollars that went into this research project.

PREFACE

Culture has been the focus of my learning and research for some years now, but I
must confess that in my early graduate student days this was the last thing I wanted to do.
My studies were not to be determined by my ethnicity or my gender, but by my intellect,
as if these could be separated. I wanted to study the social aspects of human nature. I
would envision a face-less, color-less, gender-less social animal that lived inside all of us,
and that’s who I wanted to study. However, real life got in the way. Not only were those
around me expecting a natural inclination toward the study of culture (read: Pygmalion
Effect), but everyday life in a host culture different from my native culture was the source
of constant reminders that we all are really not the same. The more I realized the layers
created by our socialization, the harder it was for me to get to the generic social animal.

This dissertation is part of my reconciliation with the richness and boundaries we
acquire through our culture. While I value and practice the ideals of the objective study
of human behavior, I have also grown to appreciate the biases that culture ingrains in our
being, even as researchers. I wish to continue the study of culture and embark in a search
for ways in which ethnicity may be cherished as the source of usefiil and advantageous

biases. Diversity is good.

Ileana P. Rodriguez-Maldonado
April 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1

PRELIMINARY STUDY: THE CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF VALUES IN THE

UNITED STATES AND PUERTO RICO ....................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2

THE PILOT STUDY ............................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3

INTRODUCTION TO THE CROSS-CULTURAL EXPERIMENT ........................ 32
CHAPTER 4

HYPOTHESES ...................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 5

METHOD ............................................................................................ 38
CHAPTER 6

RESULTS ............................................................................................ 50
CHAPTER 7

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 76
APPENDICES ....................................................................................... 86
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 131

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Comparisons of Values Between and Within Cultures

in the Preliminary Study ........................................................................... 20
Table 2: Factor Loadings of Old and New Items in the Pilot Study .......................... 26
Table 3: Revised Value Indexes .................................................................. 30
Table 4: Item-Total Correlations for Achievement ............................................. 53
Table 5: Item-Total Correlations for Conformity ............................................... 53
Table 6: Comparisons of Values Between and Within Cultures in the Experiment ........ 56
Table 7: Culture x Situational Interdependence on Ratings of Task Difficulty ............ 62
Table 8: Condition x Culture x Trials ............................................................ 69
Table 9: Culture x Trials ........................................................................... 70
Table 10: Condition x Trials ....................................................................... 71

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Theoretical Structure of Values ......................................................... 7
Figure 2: Culture x Values in the Preliminary Study ........................................... 20
Figure 3: Proposed Cross-Level Model .......................................................... 36
Figure 4: A Drawing of the Pattern of the Towers ............................................. 47
Figure 5: Culture x Values Interaction in Experiment .......................................... 56

Figure 6: Culture x Situational Interdependence Interaction
on Ratings of Task Difficulty ..................................................................... 63

Figure 7: The Tested Model ....................................................................... 73

viii

LIST OF ABREVIATION S

UPR University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez
MSU Michigan State University

US United States

PR Puerto Rico

ng Interrater Reliability Index (Interrater Agreement Index)

ix

INTRODUCTION

Culture is the broadest of social frameworks to shape our thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors. Culture is also a tool of adaptation. Through symbols and materials members
learn to be effective within their physical and social context. A wealth of research has
explored the worldwide diversity of symbols and materials that serve humans in their
adaptation to their environment. However, in the dawn of the 21St century the world is
rapidly changing in ways that make the study of culture increasingly relevant. What used
to be curious explorations of foreign ways of life have become manuals for intercultural
communication, facts that may help in understanding the fellow co-worker, as well as our
neighbor. Increased ethnic diversity in societies, technological advances that facilitate
worldwide communications, and the globalization of economies, are all movements that
have increased the significance of culture as a social variable. A contemporary social and
personality psychologist may not only be puzzled by cultural differences in perception of
interpersonal space and social graces, but should also be interested in all the influences
that the cultural background may have on the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of an
individual.

This dissertation was designed as a contribution to the better understanding of
culture as a social variable in collective behavior. This is a study of the role of Puerto

Rican and American cultural values on the attitudes and behaviors of individuals in an

2

interdependent situation. As an observer participant, a native of Puerto Rico living in the
American Midwest, I have gained some insights into the relevance of culture on a variety
of social behaviors. Just like personality variables, such as “social skills” affect the
behavior of an individual in a group, I have informally observed different ways in which
the cultural background of individuals seem to influence behavior in collectives. At the
more focused level, this study sought to better understand the influence of cultural values
on attitudes and individual performance when in a situation of reward or outcome
interdependence.

In a 1977 review of cross-cultural small group research, Shuter summarizes that
group processes are significantly influenced by cultural values. In the same paper, Shuter
proposes a theory which maintains that each small group variable is affected by values
within the culture. A lot of research has been done on the topic of outcome or reward
interdependence (eg. Weinstein & Holzback, 1973; Rosembaum, 1978; Fandt, Cady, &
Sparks, 1993) but this work has yet to be applied at a cross-cultural level.

A preliminary comparative study of cultural values was done in the United States
(Michigan) and in Puerto Rico. The preliminary study was done to outline the core
values held by individuals in these two cultures. Based on the findings on the preliminary
investigation, specific predictions were made for each culture regarding the impact of the
differential preference of relevant cultural values on the attitudes and the behavior in a
situation of reward interdependence. These predictions were tested in a cross-cultural
experiment in which the values, attitudes and behaviors of individuals in the United
States and in Puerto Rico were measured in the context of a simulated group in which

participants were exposed to different levels of outcome/reward interdependence.

3

This dissertation includes a report on the preliminary study which is a
comparative study of cultural values in Puerto Rico and the United States, and a report on
the cross-cultural laboratory experiment which explored the relationship between culture

and the experience of interdependence.

Chapter 1

THE PRELIMINARY STUDY: THE CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF VALUES
IN THE UNITED STATES AND PUERTO RICO

Introduction

"Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired
and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups,
including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of
traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached
values; culture systems may on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the
other as conditioning elements of further action" (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952, p. 357).
For any collective that claims a culture, there is a Shared bank of knowledge, preferences
and expectations that offer a framework in which psychological phenomena are
experienced and expressed. The existence of social systems depends on the predictability
of social behavior, and this is only possible through these shared content structures
(Hofstede, 1980).

Out of the variety of information shared by culture members, values are
considered essential in the organization of the culture (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952).

Values are mental structures that develop early in the life of the individual. Thus, they

5

are expected to be deeply internalized as abstract preferences, whereas other culturally
influenced knowledge structures, such as attitudes and beliefs, are more vulnerable to the
experiences of the individual (Rokeach, 1968). In terms of social adaptation theory
(Piaget, 1929), values are the most abstract of social cognitions and they reflect the most
basic characteristics of adaptation (Kahle, 1983; Kahle, Kulka, & Klingel, 1980; Piner &
Kahle, 1984).

The anthropological definition of values states that they are conceptions of the
desirable which influence the selection from available modes, means, and ends of actions
(Kluckhohn, 1951; italics added for emphasis). More broadly defined, values are
tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others (Hofstede, 1980). Theorists from
a variety of social sciences have adopted this view of values as criteria that individuals
use to select and justify actions and to evaluate people (including the self) and events (e. g.
Schwartz, 1992; Rokeach, 1973; Williams, 1968; Kluckhohn, 1951). The definition of
values compiled by Schwartz & Bilsky (1987, 1990) will be adopted because these
researchers developed a clear and concise definition that incorporates all the elements
recurrently mentioned by other researchers. Values (1) are beliefs, that (2) pertain to
desirable end states or behaviors, (3) transcend specific situations, (4) guide selection or
evaluation of behavior and events, and (5) are ordered by relative importance.

The specific contents of value structures have been of interest to social scientists
for a very long time, and the research in this area has come a long way. From intuitive
listing of possible preferences (e.g., Rokeach, 1973) to the detailed cross-cultural analysis
of factors resulting from sound statistical procedures (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz &

Bilsky, 1987, 1990; Hofstede, 1980), the study of the content of values has evolved into a

6

number of universally shared values. The most comprehensive work to date in the study
of the content of values is presented by Schwartz (1992) who studied the content of
values across 20 countries.

A good work on ( l) the content of the values, (2) the comprehensiveness of the
values listed, (3) the equivalence of meaning of values across groups, and (4) the
structure of Such values, was done by Schwartz and Bilsky (1987, 1990). After revisions
and cross-cultural replications, Schwartz (1992) presented a model that outlines ten (10)
motivational domains that represent the goals and motivations expressed by the variety of
values. According to this theory, values represent goals and motivations. The 10
motivational domains are: self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power,
security, conformity, tradition, benevolence, and universalism. Evidence for yet another
motivational dimension representing values of spirituality has emerged in some studies
but not in others, therefore this dimension was not be addressed in this study.

These goals or motivational domains may also be organized in terms of the
interests they serve. Schwartz (1992) suggests that values may serve the interests of the
individual, of a collective, or the interests may be mixed. Figure 1 presents the
theoretical structure of relations among motivational types Of values as prOposed by

Schwartz (1992).

    

BEN EVOLENCE

 

UNIVERSALISM

 

   

SELF—DlRECTlON

   

POWER

   

AC HlEVEMENT

 

Figure 1: Theoretical Structure of Values

Extensive cross-cultural research has uncovered the dimension of individualism v.
collectivism as a strong theoretical construct along which cultures around the world vary
(e.g. Triandis, 1989; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). The theoretical and practical
implications of the individualism-collectivism dimension (Luke, 1973) have been studied
in a variety of social sciences. Some of the issues that have been studied in relation to
these constructs are social systems (e.g., Parsons & Shils, 1951), morality (Shweder,
1982), religion (Bakan, 1966), cognitive differentiation (Witkin & Berry, 1975),
economic development (Adelman & Morris, 1967), modernity (Inkeles & Calegari,
1979), and cultural patterns (Hsu, 1983).

In order to integrate the cross-cultural literature on individualism and collectivism
with the more specific interest in the study of values, individualism and collectivism will

be defined in terms of the motivational types and values that serve their particular

8

interests. Based on this classification, a discussion of the particular motivational
dimensions is presented.

According to Schwartz (1992), the motivational domains that serve individualistic
values are self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and power. Self-direction
is a type defined by the goals of independent thought and action, and is characterized by
the valuing Of creativity, freedom, choosing own goals, curiosity, and independence.
Stimulation represents goals of excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. Values
representing this motivational type are varied life, exciting life, and daring. Hedonism, a
motivational type characterized by the goals of pleasure and sensuous gratification for
oneself, represents the values of happiness, cheerfulness, and enjoyment of life.
Achievement is a motivational type defined by goals of personal success according to
social and cultural standards, and competence in performance. Values characteristic of
the achievement motivational type are ambition, success, capable, and influential. The
last of the individualistic motivational domains is power, a type defined by goals of the
attainment of social status and prestige, and the control over people and resources. These
personal values share individualistic goals, and acting on these values leads to the
enhancement of the individual. Theoretically, out of these five individualistic
motivations, the values of self-direction and achievement seem to be particularly relevant
to attitudes and behaviors in work groups. Since, both self-direction and achievement
focus on individual success, individuals high on these motivations may find it relatively
difficult to work effectively in interdependent groups.

Other motivational types are related by the shared interest in serving the goals of

collectives. These dimensions are benevolence, tradition, and conformity. Benevolence

9

is defined by the goals of preservation, and the enhancement of welfare of the people with
whom one is in frequent contact. Values characteristic of this dimension are: helpfulness,
loyalty, forgiveness, honesty, responsibility, true friendship, and mature love. The
motivational goal of tradition includes goals of respect, commitment, and the acceptance
of the customs and ideas imposed by the culture and religion on the individual. The
tradition dimension is represented by the values of respect for tradition, humbleness,
devotion, accepting own's portion of life, and moderation. And finally, conformity, a
motivational type that has as a goal the restraint of actions, inclinations and impulses
likely to upset others. Values in this dimension are: obedience, self-discipline, politeness,
and the honoring of parents and elders. Out of the collectivistic values, conformity seems
to be the most relevant to attitudes and behaviors in work group, since it makes reference
to attitudes and actions when in the presence of others. Individuals that present a strong
conformity motivation may feel relatively more comfortable working in an
interdependent group task.

Finally, the two dimensions proposed by Schwartz (1992) to involve both
individualistic and collectivistic interests are universalism and security. Universalism is
a motivational type that gathers the goals of understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and
the protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. Security is defined by goals of
safety, harmony, and the stability of society, relationships and the self. Values
representing this dimension are social order, family security, national security,
reciprocation of favors, clean, sense of belonging, and health.

Throughout the cross-cultural literature, the United States is a stable example of a

nation with a relatively individualistic culture (e. g. Triandis, H. C., 1989). On the other

10

hand, Puerto Rico has a Latin culture and most Latin cultures have been found to be
oriented towards collectivism (Hofstede, 1980). A cross-cultural study that included
Puerto Rico found that Puerto Ricans hold many collectivistic cultural elements, with
certain individualistic tendencies that distance this culture from stronger collectivistic
cultures such as the Japanese (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). The
distance of Puerto Ricans from core collectivistic values found in a study by Triandis and
colleagues (1988) were attributed by Lucca, the Puerto Rican researcher, as affected by
the use of a university students sample and possible methodological confounds.
According to Lucca's subjective judgment, Puerto Rican students are on the
individualistic side of the neutral point on the individualism-collectivism dimension.
Because Lucca considered that some of the findings pertaining to the Puerto Rican
sample did not fit her expectations of cultural patterns, the researchers suggested that
maybe the items in the questionnaire considered behaviors that are not culturally
proscribed or prescribed in Puerto Rico. For example, while the Puerto Rican sample
reported not to be concerned with what others say about them, Lucca considered that the
opinions of others about one's behavior are very important in the overall Puerto Rican
culture. Thus, the question of value patterns and the interests that they serve in the Puerto
Rican society remained open. The purpose of this preliminary study was to carefully

explore the cultural differences in values.

Hypotheses
This study investigated the value priorities of the individuals in the United States

and in Puerto Rico evaluating the importance that individuals in each culture give to

11

individualistic and collectivistic values. In this study of value systems of the United
States and Puerto Rico, the Americans were expected to show a more individualistic
value pattern, in which the motivational dimensions of values of self-direction,
stimulation, hedonism, achievement and power would be rated as relatively more
important for the individuals, whereas the motivational dimensions of benevolence,
tradition and. conformity would be rated as relatively less important for the individuals.
For the Puerto Rican society a more collectivistic pattern was expected. The motivational
domains of benevolence, tradition, and conformity were expected to be rated as relatively
highly important for individuals, whereas the motivations of self-direction, stimulation,
hedonism, achievement, and power were expected to be rated as less important for
individuals. The motivational types of values of universalism and security were expected
to be present with equal strength in both nations.

The presence of such patterns of value priorities would support an overall
characterization of the American culture as individualistic and the Puerto Rican culture as
collectivistic.

According to these hypotheses, the culture of the individuals would lead to a
specific rank order of value priorities representative of the culture. The level of
measurement was the individual, therefore within each society the importance attributed

to particular values was expected to vary at the individual level.

Method
Samples: One hundred (100) students (29 males; 71 females) from the University of

Puerto Rico at Mayagfiez (UPR) and one hundred (100) students (31 males; 68 females)

12

from Michigan State University (MSU) were the participants in this study. All of the
participants were undergraduate students enrolled in psychology courses at these
universities. The ages of the Puerto Rican participants ranged from 18 to 55 (M=21) and
that of the Americans ranged from 18 to 46 (M=22).

Materials: The presence of motivational dimension in each culture was measured with the
Value Survey Instrument developed by Schwartz (1992). This questionnaire has a list of
the values that represent the different motivational dimensions and asks the participants
to rate each one of these values in terms of their personal importance. The values listed
are the same ones that were presented throughout the introduction as representative of
each of the motivational dimensions. The motivational dimensions are represented in the
list by three (3) to seven (7) values. The Value Survey Instrument (Schwartz, 1992) is
presented in Appendix A1. Appendix A2 presents the translation to Spanish of this
instrument, which was developed for the study of Schwartz (1992) across 20 countries.
The Value Survey Instrument had participants rate 56 values in a -1 to 7 likert scale. The
question that the survey asked about each value was the following: "As a guiding
principle in my life, this value is: (-1) opposed to my values, (0) not important, (3)
important, (6) very important, (7) of supreme importance".

Procedure: The data on the surveys was collected from psychology classes at MSU and
UPR during the Summer 1994 semester. The participants were approached during one of
the meetings of their psychology class and were asked to volunteer their time and
information. The questionnaire generally took from 10 to 15 minutes to complete. After

they completed the questionnaire the participants received debriefing information,

13

including the predictions of this cross-cultural study (see Appendix 81 for debriefing

information in English and Appendix B2 for debriefing information in Spanish).

Results

The main hypothesis in this study predicted that there would be relative value
priorities according to the nation of origin of the participants. Previous to examining this
hypothesis the internal consistency of the cross-cultural motivational dimensions outlined
by Schwartz (1992) was studied. Coefficients were computed for the index of each value
type in both samples. The reliabilities for the motivational dimensions were the
following: self-direction, M=.61, range .53 [PR] to .69 [US]; stimulation, M=.72, range
.77 [PR] to .68 [US]; hedonism, M=.70, range .71 [PR] to .69 [US]; achievement, M=.62,
range .58 [PR] to .67 [US]; power, M=.74, range .72 [PR] to .76 [US]; security, M=.62,
range .53 [PR] to .72 [US]; conformity, M=.68, range .68 [PR] to .69 [US]; benevolence,
M=.75, range .76 [PR] to .59 [US]; universalism, M=.75, range .72 [PR] to .79 [US] and;
tradition (M=.49, range .33 [PR] to .64 [US]). The low reliabilities may be attributed to
the small number of items in each index (from 3 to 7 items), but they are consistent with
the reliabilities previously found by Schwartz, Sagiv, and Antonovsky (1991), in a study
across four cultures, in which the measures of reliability of the indexes fell into the range
of .49 to .79. The tradition index was also the lowest in reliability in this study done by
Schwartz and his colleagues (1991).

Reliabilities for the clusters of motivational dimensions labeled in the introduction
as individualistic values and collectivistic values were-also calculated. Both indexes

showed high reliabilities. For the individualistic values (i.e. self—direction, stimulation,

l4

hedonism, achievement, and power) the mean alpha was of .81 with a range of .80 [PR]
to .82 [US]. For the collectivistic values (i.e. benevolence, conformity and tradition) the
mean alpha was of.77 with a range of.76 [PR] to .78 [US].
Within-Culture Differences

In the American sample, the values were ranked (1 to 7 scale) in the following
descending Order: benevolence (M=5.18), achievement (M=4.95), self-direction
(M=4.94), hedonism (M=4.88), security (M=4.48), conformity (M=4.41), universalism
(M=4.34), stimulation (M=3.90), tradition (M=3.13), power (M%2.84). For the Puerto
Rican sample the ratings were the following: benevolence (M=5.46), conformity
(M=5.32), self-direction (M=5 .24), universalism (M=5.20), achievement (M=5.03),
security (M=4.74), stimulation (M=4.27), tradition (M=4.22), hedonism (M=3.84), power
(M=3.21).
Between-Cultures Differences

In order to make valid cross-cultural comparisons of the value survey scores, the
possibility of cultural variations in response bias needs to be taken in consideration (e.g.,
Zax & Takahashi, 1967). Regarding the use of rating scales, Hispanic samples have been
found to give less extreme responses than Mediterranean participants (Hui & Triandis,
1989) but more extreme responses than non-Hispanic white Americans (Marin, Gamba,
& Marin, 1992). Also similar to Asians, Hispanics tend to give cautious responses (Hui
& Triandis, 1989). Interesting is that in the study comparing Hispanics versus non-
Hispanics white Americans (Marin et al., 1992), the extreme responses practiced by the
Hispanic diminished as they became more acculturated into mainstream American

society. Based on this particular finding it could be argued that even within the cultural

15

and ethnic diversity present in the United States, we may still find a response bias shared
by most Americans. More specifically relevant to the present study, when comparing the
response style of Japanese, Americans (from Illinois), and Puerto Ricans, Triandis and his
colleagues (1988) found that the Japanese tended to use the middle of the scale while the
Americans and the Puerto Ricans were more likely to use the whole scale, when
responding to a questionnaire that measured allocentric tendencies. Contrasting to the
finding by Triandis and colleagues (1988) we found differences in the use of the value
rating scale between the Puerto Ricans and the Americans.

The ratings that the individuals gave to the different motivational dimensions
were averaged to calculate a mean rating across all values for each participant. These
individual, cross-dimensions mean ratings were aggregated to the culture level and
compared by a t—test. This analysis showed that Puerto Ricans tended overall to rate
values significantly higher (M=4.66) than did the Americans (M=4.31) (t(191)=-3.29,
p<.001). The average rating of the Puerto Ricans ranged from 3.04 to 6.02, with a
standard deviation of .71, while the average rating of American participants ranged from
2.51 to 6.21, with a standard deviation of .75. Overall the ratings made by the American
participants were more spread across the scale, while those made by the Puerto Ricans
tended to be higher in the scale and showed less variance. Because of these cross-cultural
differences in the approach to the values rating scale, the mean differences on the ratings
of the motivational dimensions would be expected to be biased. In order to study the
relative preference of values across, two different statistical analyses will be presented.
First, a study of standardized scores of the ratings created at the individual level and

second, a study of the rankings of the motivational dimensions at the individual level.

16

The use of standard scores for the comparison of value ratings between cultures is
particularly useful in this case when we have found cultural differences in the overall
average rating. Taking into account the distribution of value ratings at the individual
level, standard scores were calculated, making each participant’s mean rating equal to
zero and observing how their rating of each of the motivational dimensions deviated from
their mean. Standard scores were calculated for each of the motivational dimensions for
each of the participants and between cultures t-tests were then performed for each of the
dimensions. There were not statistical differences between nations on the z-scores of the
ratings of the motivational dimensions of self-direction (t(190)=1.22, p<.23),
stimulation (t(l92)=-.65, p<.51), power t(182)=-l .04, p<.3), security t(188)=.88, p<.4),
and benevolence t(191)=1.42, p<. 16). The standardized ratings of the motivational
dimensions of hedonism and achievement were significantly higher for the Americans
than for the Puerto Ricans. The mean standardized rating of the motivation for hedonism
for the Americans was .12 while for the Puerto Ricans it was -.17 (t(181)=7.55,p<.001).
For the achievement motivation the mean in the United States was .14, while in Puerto
Rico it was .08 (t(190)=3.34, p<.001). Opposite patterns were found for the standardized
ratings of the motivational dimensions of conformity, tradition, and universalism.
Conformity was rated significantly higher in Puerto Rico (M=.14) than in the United
States (M=.03) (t(189)=-4.35, p<.001). For the tradition motivation the mean
standardized rating in Puerto Rico was -.09 and in the United States it was -.26 (t(178)=-
5.86, p<.001). Finally, the universalism motivation was also higher in Puerto Rico

(M=.11) than in the United States (M=.01) (t(l79)=-4.38, p<.001).

17

The second analysis performed to study the differences in preferences of
motivational dimensions between the United States and Puerto Rico was a study of the
rankings of these dimensions at the individual level. Scores for the motivational
dimensions were calculated by averaging the ratings given to the values theoretically
representative of each of them. Based on these raw means these motivational dimensions
were ranked at the individual level. A ranking value from 1 to 10 was assigned to each
motivational dimensions for each subject. The higher the number the higher the
importance of that motivational dimension for the subject. If any two or more
motivational dimensions were tied in their rankings, the corresponding positions were
averaged and the corresponding motivations assigned the same value. For example, if
two motivational dimensions were ranked as the fifth most important values, they would
both be assigned the average between positions 5 and 6 in the ranking, a ranking of 5.5.
T-tests for each motivational dimension were performed to compare their ranking
position across cultures. The same pattern uncovered by the study of the standardized
ratings was found in this analysis. No statistical differences in the rankings by Americans
and Puerto Ricans were found for the motivational dimensions of self-direction
(t(193)=.7, p<.49), stimulation (t(197)=-.81, p<.42), power (t(l98)=-.l l, p<.91), security
(t(193)=1.49, p<. l4), and benevolence (t(193)=.92, p<.36). The rankings of the
motivational dimensions of hedonism and achievement were significantly higher in the
American sample than in the Puerto Rican sample. The mean ranking of the hedonism
dimension by the Americans was 7.15 while the mean ranking of the Puerto Ricans was
3.81 (t(l95)=7.94, p<.001). For the achievement dimension, the American mean ranking

was 7.29 and the Puerto Rican mean ranking was 6.26 (t(l86)=3.58, p<.001). On the

18

other hand, the motivational dimensions of conformity, tradition, and universalism were
ranked higher by the Puerto Ricans than by the Americans. For the conformity dimension
the mean ranking of the Puerto Ricans was 7.27 and the mean ranking of the Americans
was 5.51 (t(197)=-5.16, p<.001). The mean rankings for the tradition dimension were
4.13 by the Puerto Ricans and 2.56 by the Americans (t(187)=-5.44, p<.001). Finally, the
mean ranking for the universalism dimension by the Puerto Ricans was 6.83 and by the
Americans it was 5.13 (t(192)=-5.52, p<.001).

An individualism-collectivism index was created with the standardized ratings
based on the interests served (i.e. individual vs collective) by the values. The scale was
created by giving each of the theoretically individualistic motivational dimensions of self-
direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and power a weight of -l, and a weight of
+1 to each of the collectivistic dimensions of conformity, tradition, and benevolence. The
motivational dimensions of security and universalism were not included because
theoretically they are expected to be found with equal strength in collectivistic and in
individualistic cultures. A t-test of this individualism-collectivism index between nations
showed a statistically significant tendency for Puerto Ricans to be more collectivistic
(M=.57) than the Americans (M=-.02) (t(192)=-4.79, p<.001).

Focus on achievement, conformity, and self-direction

As stated in the introduction, the motivational dimensions of interest are self-
direction, achievement, and conformity, because of their theoretical relevance to
behaviors in work groups and more specifically to individuals in a situation of reward
interdependence. As noted earlier on the cross-cultural simple comparisons, for the

motivational dimension of self-direction, there was no difference on the standardized

19

ratings between the Americans. On the other hand, the analysis of the standardized
ratings of the motivational dimensions of conformity and achievement did present cross-
cultural differences. The first Option as statistical method to explore the cross-cultural
patterns of value preferences was a Repeated Measures AN OVA, which permits a direct
test of different profiles of values across . This type of analysis requires homogeneity of
covariance aCross the groups, basically all pairs of levels of the within-subj ects variable
need to have equivalent correlation. SPSS offers the Option of calculating the Box’s M
which tests the equality of covariance matrices. For this set of data the Box’s M was
6.17, and F(3, 6635520)=2.03, p<.107. The dependent variable’s covariances were the
same across the groups, therefore the Repeated-Measures AN OVA was an appropriate
statistical tool to use. Because there are only two levels of the repeated measures
variable, Sphericity and Compound Symmetry are assumed. A 2(culture) x 2 (values:
conformity, achievement) Repeated-Measures AN OVA was performed. There was no
main effect for culture (F(1, 192)=2.17, p<. 14). There was a marginal main effect for the
value dimensions (F(1, 192)=.3.14, p<.08). However, there was a significant interaction
between culture and values (F(1, 192)=25, p<.0001). Table 1 presents the comparisons
corresponding to this interaction. See Figure 2 for a graphical representation of this

interaction.

20

Table 1: Comparisons of Values Between and Within Cultures in the Preliminary Study
[* p<.05, ** p<.01]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

US Achievement US Conformity PR Achievement PR Conformity
US Achievement 0 -5.45** -4.42** -4643
US Conformity 0 .9196 4.91 **
PR Achievement 0 3.91 **
PR Conformity O
0.4 i
Achievement US
\ /. Conformity PR ]
0.2 i
0 l —c— PR
1
l
'02 Achievement FR ]
\ Conformity US i
I
-O.4 n i

 

 

Achievement Conformity

Figure 2: Culture x Values Interaction in the Preliminary Study

These analyses show a crossover on the preference of the values of achievement and
conformity in these two cultures, with a barely marginal higher preference of the value of
achievement across cultures (t(193)=l .67, p<.1). The mean for achievment across
cultures was .11, while the mean for conformity was .08. As expected, there was a
relative higher preference of achievement in the US than in PR , and a relative higher

preference of conformity in PR than in the US.

21

Discussion

The main hypothesis proposed in this preliminary study was supported by the
findings. Overall the American sample evidenced a relative preference for individualistic
values over collectivistic values, or, equivalently, the Puerto Rican sample showed a
tendency to prefer collectivistic values over individualistic values. The specific
motivational. dimensions of achievement, self-direction, and conformity, which were
theoretically expected to be relevant to group tasks, showed interesting results.
Unexpectedly, the individualistic values of self-direction seem to be strongly held by
Puerto Ricans as much as by Americans. However, cultural differences were found
regarding the preference of the motivational dimensions of achievement and conformity.
The American sample showed evidence of a stronger preference for achievement values
than the Puerto Rican sample. On the other hand, the Puerto Ricans valued conformity
much more than did the Americans.

Self-direction, a motivational dimension that addresses the interest in creativity,
independence, freedom, self-respect, curiosity, and the choosing of own goals, was found
to be strong in both cultures. Theoretically, self-direction is a motivational dimension
that could be expected to have an impact in work group situations, since issues such as
independence, freedom and choosing of own goal may be limited in this setting. The
finding that this motivational dimension is highly and equally valued by Americans and
Puerto Ricans may suggest that working in a group can be in conflict with a value
strongly held in both cultures. However, the high value placed on self-direction is shared
in both cultures, and therefore no cross-cultural comparisons may be argued to emerge

from this value preference. On the other hand, it may be argued that once in a group

22

differences in the other two motivations (i.e. achievement and conformity) may create
differences in the attitudes and performance. The motivation for achievement, which was
higher than conformity in the United States, involves the valuing of ambition, success,
capability, influence, and intelligence. Interdependence in a group task may interfere
with a strong motivation for personal achievement. Depending on others for success may
be frustrating for the ambitious individual. A person that is strongly motivated for
success may not be totally comfortable in a situation in which their success is not only
dependent on their performance but is also contingent on the actions of others. On the
other hand, conformity, which was higher than achievement in the Puerto Rican sample,
is represented by values of obedience, sense of belonging, and politeness. These kinds of
values may be more likely to lead to a confortable experience in an interdependent group.
Continued membership in the group is important to conformity motivated individuals,
therefore interdependence is a situation they should favor and feel comfortable in. These
possible links were studied in the following laboratory experiment.

In the presentation of the reliability results it was argued that the low reliabilities
were consistent with previous studies with this same value survey. However, in order to
use this value indexes in the context of other variables, as it was intended in the following
cross-cultural experiment, the reliability of the indexes needed to improve. In order to
improve the reliability of the indexes an possible extension of the indexes of conformity
and achievement was tested in a pilot study. The following chapter presents the

description and results of this pilot study.

Chapter 2

THE PILOT STUDY

Introduction

The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the possibility of adding new items
to the Schwartz (1992) indexes of achievement and conformity in order to improve their
reliability. The pilot survey included the original items used by Schwartz (1992), which
were used in the preliminary study, and several potential parallel items, which were
selected by searching for synonyms and antonyms to the old items. The survey also
included items from the indexes of self-direction, security and power, which were
included for masking puposes. Other potentially relevant items were also included.
These latter items were: equity, equality, competition, cooperation, independence,

interdependence, and dependence.

Method

Subjects:

The participants were students from DeVry Institute of Technology, DuPage Campus,
Addison, IL. 80 students from Introduction to Psychology classes participated in this

pilot study of the value survey. There were 62 males, 16 females. Two(2) students

23

24

did not identify their sex. The age of the participants ranged from 17 to 39, with a mean
of 2 1 .3. Another piece of demographic information that was collected was the ethnicity
of the participants. Participants were offered a blank space to enter their ethnic
background, and six groups emerged: African Americans (6), Hispanics (6), Caucasians
(47), Asian (14), Philippinos (3), and Muslim (1). Three participants did not report their
ethnic background.

Procedure:

This pilot study was proposed to and authorized by the Dean of Academics and
the President of DeVry Institute of Technology, DuPage Campus. The students were
asked to volunteer their participation and were not offered any compensation in exchange
for their participation. Students were approached by their Psychology professor and

asked to participate in the study.

Results

The pilot data was examined in several ways to determine which items to include
in the experiment’s revised survey. Also, once the experiment’s data was collected, the
pilot was used again as an extra sample to compare the performance of the items in the
scales. In general, three types of explorations were done to revise the indexes.

1. Principal Components Factor Analyses, with Varimax Rotations were done with the
pilot data and within cultures with the experiment’s data. These analyses were used
to explore the way the factors emerged and the items that loaded on the factors of

interest.

25

2. Once the associated items were selected for each scale, the reliability of the indexes
was tested. In the pilot data, the alpha reliability of the old achievement index was
.74, while the revised and extended index had a reliability of .91. On the index of
conformity, there is also an increase in the alpha reliability, from .74 to .86.

3. Finally, another feature desirable in the indexes was good within-culture agreement.
The Interrater Reliability/Agreement Index (mg) was also used as a way to select
items. Considering that the variables of interest here were expected to represent
cultural phenomena, the degree to which the members of the culture agree on the
ratings of the index was considered an important feature for the value indexes. The
way in which this index was used will be described in detail below.

A Principal Components Factor Analysis (PCA) with Varimax Rotations was
performed. The PCA was limited to extract 7 factors. The extraction of 7 factors was
based on the number of a priori value scales included (5) along with all the extra items.

An interesting aspect of this set of data is the diversity of the sample. While 59%
of the participants were Caucasian, the rest of the participants came from very diverse
backgrounds. Considering that these are culturally relevant factors, the ethnic divesity of
the sample may have contributed to the way the factors emerged and more importantly
how the items loaded in each factor. In any case, in the rotated component matrix, the
two value indexes of interest did emerge as the two first factors. The first factor
corresponded to the measure of achievement [Eigenvalue = 21.89], and the second factor
corresponded to conformity [Eigenvalue = 5.76]. See Table 2 for a list of the old and new
items and their loadings in these two factors. Old items appear in bold. Only the items

relevant to achievement and conformity are listed.

26
Table 2: Factor Loadings of Old and New Items in the Pilot Study

 

 

 

 

ITEMS A C HIE VEMEN T CONFORMITY
Ambitious .784 .221
Successful .791 .048
Capable* .756 .186
Influential* .231 .081
Aspirations .75 .108
Accomplishing .741 .181
Purposeful ‘ .713 .345
Obedience* .31 1 .482
Self-Discipline* .584 .391
Politeness* .444 .728
Honoring of Parents and Elders .409 .609
Courtesy .244 .612
Cooperation .361 .612
Consideration .256 .617
Adherence (to rules) .279 .661
Observance (of rules) .319 .400
Self-Restraint (in favor of others) .123 .686
Sharing .151 .727

 

*Items that belonged to the old indexes but were later dropped from the indexes used in
the analyses of the experiment’s data.

How did this factor analysis contribute to the selection of items used in the analyses of
the experiment’s data? [Reference was made to the similar FA’s that were done within
culture with the experiment’s data. All samples, including the pilot sample, were taken in
consideration in the final selection of the items that were included in the scales for further
analyses. The preliminary FA’s that were done within-cultures, with the experiment’s
surveys will not be presented here.] I will address this question by discussing the five
items that were dropped.

CAPABLE. While this item clearly loaded very high on the achievement index in the
pilot study (.756) it did not do so well in the American sample of the experiment, were

this item loaded at .188 in the achievement index.

27

INF LUENTIAL. All of the items listed in this table above were included in the survey
used in the experiment, with the exception of “influential”. Earlier, I made reference to
the item “influential” which was included in the Schwartz (1992) dimension of
achievement, and was tested in the preliminary study and in the pilot, but was dropped
from the extended survey used in the analysis of the experimental data. This item was
dropped based on the factor analysis of the pilot data. As you can see in the table above,
the item “influential” loaded on the achievement factor at .231, while all the other
achievement related items loaded at a .7 level or higher. Therefore, it was not included in
the experiment’s survey. It is now realized that this was not a good idea, since including
the item in the experiment’s survey would have been easy and it would have permitted a
comparison between the full original Schwartz (1992) achievement index and the revised
index used in the experiment. While this comparison cannot be done with the data from
the experiment it can be done with the data of the pilot.

OBEDIENCE. This item had an acceptable loading in the index of conformity, at .482,
but when you look at it’s loading on achievement, at .311, then it is not that clear how
this item should be interpreted. The final decision was made with a look at the factor
analyses of the PR and US data from the experiment (complete results not presented
here). In the PR sample, obedience loaded on the conformity factor well, at .599, but in
the US sample this item loaded on the conformity index at only .371. While it could still
have been included it was decided to drop it from the scale. The item was included in the

experiment’s survey.

28

SELF DISCIPLINE. This item was expected to load higher in the conformity factor, but
it loaded even more on the achievement factor (.5 84). This was enough to drop it from
the conformity scale.

POLITENESS. While this item loaded very well on the conformity factor, as expected,
the variance in the PR sample was extremely high, and since I ultimately used the
Interrater Agreement Index (rwg) as a selection tool, this item was dropped. Below the
reader will find a more detailed description of the way in which rwg was used as an item
selection criteria.

Why was OBSERVANCE kept in the conformity scale? While in the pilot this item did

not do so well, it did better in the experiment. In PR it loaded on the conformity factor at

.601, and in the US at .555.

What is the Interrater Reliability Index (rwg) and how was it used?

A common misunderstanding with the Interrater Reliability Index proposed by
James, Demaree, & Wolf (1984) is created by the name of the index. This is not a
reliability index, but rather a within-group agreement index (Kozlowski & Hattrup,
1992). This index is a measure of the degree to which raters are “interchangeable”, or the
degree to which judges agree on a set of judgements (James, et al., 1984, Shrout & Fleiss,
1979, Bartko, 1976). The idea behind using the agreement index was that, if culture
shapes values then the value indexes should show good within culture agreement. These
analyses were done by hand. It is relatively easy to include and exclude an item in these
calculations to observe the effect on the agreement index. This is how a few items (from

the set selected through the factor analysis) were finally selected for further analyses. The

29

items that were finally used in the analyses of achievement and conformity were the
combination of items that resulted in the highest agreement index in both cultures.
The formula for the Interrater AGREEMENT index for a set of items (rwgm) is:

Rival) = 111 — «Mean 8.42) / GEUZH

 

J11 — «Mean af) / GEUZH + «Mean a?) / GEUZ)

V_Vh_er_e:

' RWGU) is the within-group interrater agreement

I' J is the number of essentially parallel items

' Mean 8sz is the mean of the observed variances on the J items

' 01.302 is the expected variance if the judgements were due exclusively to random
measurement error. This number is the basically the variance of a completely
rectangular or uniform distribution, and it is based on the number of alternatives in
the response scale. A = number of alternatives in scale.

owl = (A2 — 1)/12 (Mood, Graybill, & Boes, 1974)

The O'Euz for the indexes in the present study was:

How was the agreement index used to select items?

The main source of information for the items that were included in the final
measures were the exploratory factor analyses discussed above. But the agreement index
was also used to refine the measures. For example, the item “politeness” loaded highly in
the factor consistent with conformity, across the three sets of data (i.e. DeVry, PR, US).
But, when the item “politeness” was included in the rwg calculations the agreement in the

Puerto Rican sample dropped dramatically, which was easy to explain with a look at the

variance of “politeness” in Puerto Rico, 13.05! Because there was no agreement on the

3O

importance of politeness in the Puerto Rican sample, this item was dropped from the
index of conformity.

The revised index of conformity included the following items: honoring parents
and elders (showing respect), cooperation(working with others for a common cause),
sharing (giving what is yours to others), adherence (to rules and regulations), observance
(of rules), self-restraint (in favor of others), courtesy (being nice to others, not being
rude), and consideration (taking into account the feelings and thoughts of others).
Politeness and self-discipline were old items that were eliminated. The revised items for
achievement were: ambitious (hardworking), successful (aspiring), aspirations (having
dreams and goals), accomplishing (reaching goals, completing tasks), and purposeful
(having goals). For the purpose of easy comparison, Table 3 shows a list of the items in
the preliminary survey next to the items in the value survey used in the experiment, for

the two values of interest.

Table 3: Revised Value Indexes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACHIEVEMENT CONFORMITY
Preliminary Study Experimental Study Preliminary Study Experimental Study
Items Items Items Items
Ambitious* Ambitious Honoring Parents Honoring Parents

and Elders and Elders
Successful Successful Politeness Courtesy
Capable Aspirations Self-discipline Cooperation
Influential Purposeful Observance
Accomplishing Sharing

Self-restraint

Consideration

Adherence

 

 

 

 

*Items in bold are those that were used in both the preliminary study and the present study.

 

31

Items to measure the motivational dimension of self-direction, security and power
were added for masking purposes. Other potentially relevant items were also included.
These latter items were: equity, equality, competition, cooperation, independence,
interdependence, and dependence.

In this study, the rwg for the revised version of conformity was .95, and the rwg
for the revised version of achievement was .98.

Based on the pilot data, is there a relationship between the original Schwartz
(1992) scale and the revised scale later used for the analysis of the experiment’s data? In
the pilot, the Pearson correlation between the old achievement index and the new
achievement index was .875. The Pearson correlation between the old conformity index
and the new conformity index was .867.

Another way of answering this question is looking at the correlation between the
old items and the completely new set of items for each scale, excluding the common
items from the extended indexes. In the pilot, the Pearson correlation between the old
items for achievement and the completely new items included in the extended scale was

.817. Regarding the conformity index, the corresponding correlation was .822.

Conclusion

The structural analysis of the pilot data and the correlations between the old and
the new indexes for achievement and conformity support the selection of items used in
the analysis of the experimental data. The revised scales are higher in reliability and

higher in terms of interrater agreement.

Chapter 3

INTRODUCTION TO THE CROSS-CULTURAL EXPERIMENT

Social adaptation theory (Piaget, 1929, 1930, 1952; Bromley, 1978) postulates
that individuals develop general strategies or dispositions that allow them to function
effectively and survive in their social environment. Examples of these functional features
are beliefs, personality traits, abilities, aspirations, and values (Bromley, 1978). As
dispositional features or strategies, values are relatively stable, shaping the form of
multiple interpersonal relations and acts, but only approximating highly specific aspects
of interpersonal relations and acts (Kahle, Kulka, & Klingel, 1980). As social adaptation
theory has theoretically and empirically evolved, the predictions have become more
specific and the causal link between values, attitudes and behaviors have been studied
(Kahle, 1983; Kahle, 1980; Homer & Kahle, 1988). Using LISREL VI (JOreskog &
SOrbom, 1983), Homer & Kahle (1988) tested the predictions of social adaptation theory
in the context of attitudes towards natural foods. These researchers found support for
causal links from locus of control related values to attitudes towards natural foods, and
from these attitudes to the behaviors of buying of natural foods. Nonsignificant path
coefficients were found between the value dimensions and shopping behaviors, thus

supporting a mediating role for attitudes (Homer et al., 1988).

32

33

Following the value-attitude-behavior model, this study tried to link cultural
values priorities to particular sets of attitudes, and these attitudes to behaviors in a
simulated interdependent group situation.

Work Groups and Reward Interdependence

A comprehensive definition of "group" was formulated by DeLamater (1974).
This author postulated that groups can be defined in terms of four properties: (1)
interaction between individuals, (2) perceptions of other members and the development of
shared perceptions, (3) the development of affective ties, and (4) the development of
interdependence or roles. Corresponding with this last defining property of groups, the
individuals in this study perceived to be part of social unit, performing the same task as
the other members and sharing an interdependent outcome with them.

Interdependence in terms of the rewards received by the performance in a group
task refers to whether or not rewards are given to groups, and if so, whether they are
given based of individual performance or group performance (Slavin, 1983). The two
levels of reward interdependence in which this project will focus are: (1) the individuals
were rewarded based solely on their own performance and the proportion of their
contribution to the group's outcome, or (2) each individual was rewarded based on the
performance and proportional contributions of the other individuals in the group. These
two reward systems were not completely representative of the more studied cooperative
vs competitive reward structures (Rosembaum, Moore, Cotton, Gray, Cook, Hieser, &
Shovar, 1978), but presented two levels of interdependence. In both conditions there was
a shared group outcome, and the difference was in the way in which each group member

benefited from their performance and that shared outcome.

Chapter 4

HYPOTHESES

A search for cultural value differences was pursued in the preliminary study, and
the findings supported the hypothesis that the Americans share more individualistic
values while Puerto Ricans share more collectivistic values. Among the 10 values
discussed and studied in the preliminary study, the motivational dimensions achievement
and conformity were highlighted for their theoretical relevance in interdependent groups.
The values survey showed that the motivation for achievement was found stronger in the
United States and the motivation for conformity stronger in Puerto Rico. The empirical
questions here addressed sought for the best match between the cultural values held by
the participants in outcome interdependent simulated groups.

Based on social adaptation theory and the literature on values and group
interdependence, a cross-level model (Rousseau, 1985) is proposed to relate cultural
values, attitudes and performance under two conditions/levels of interdependence. A
cross-level model specifies causal effects of phenomena at one level of social complexity
(e. g. group) on those at another (e. g. individual) (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In this study,
the independent variables were the culture of the participants, and interdependence in the

reward system. The process or task interdependence [i.e. the degree to which group

34

35

members need to rely on each other to perform the task] remained constant. The
dependent variables were the ratings for the values of conformity and achievement,
attitudes toward the interdependence in the task, and performance. Notice that self-
direction was equally rated and ranked in both cultures in the preliminary study, therefore
the present study will only focus on the values of achievement and conformity. This
cross-level model relates culture with the cultural values and with the attitudes and
behaviors of individuals in an interdependent (simulated) group task. The culture was
predicted to influence the preference of the achievement and conformity values,
consistent with the findings of the preliminary study. In turn, the values were predicted to
shape the attitudes that the individuals develop about the interdependent reward structure.
These attitudes were to be moderated by the degree of interdependence embeded in the
situation. And finally, the attitudes about the interdependent reward structure were
proposed to mediate the impact of the cultural values on the performance in the
interdependent task. See Figure 3 for a graphical representation of the here proposed

model.

36

Figure 3: Proposed Cross-Level Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CULTURE
CULTURAL VALUES: ATTITUDES ABOUT
ACHIEVEMENT \ THE
CONFORMITY INTERDEPENDENCE \,
IN THE TASK PERFORMANCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
    

LEVEUCONDITION OF
REWARD
INTERDEPENDENCE

 
   
 

In general, a link was proposed between the interests served by the values of the
individual and the attitudes about the reward interdependence in the group task, and
between these attitudes and the performance in the group task. Based on the preliminary

study and social adaptation theory, the following specific propositions were advanced.

Hypothesis 1: The impact of culture on the preference of the conformity and
achievement values. Americans were expected tO value achievement more than the

Puerto Ricans. On the other hand, the Puerto Ricans were expected to value conformity

more than the Americans.

Hypothesis 2: The cultural values-attitudes-performance model. Culture was predicted

to influence the performance in an interdependent task through cross-cultural differences

37

in values and attitudes. Hypotheses 2a and 2b detail the predictions of each step in this

model.

Hypothesis 23: The relationship between culture, values and the attitudes toward the
reward interdependence. If the findings support Hypothesis 1, then the cross-cultural
differences in the valuing of achievement and conformity are expected to influence the
attitudes about the reward interdependence. The Americans (Hypothesis 1: higher in
achievement and lower in conformity) were expected to have more negative attitudes
about interdependence than the Puerto Ricans (Hypothesis 1: lower in achievement,
higher in conformity). Also, the situational interdependence (i.e. higher vs. lower reward
interdependence in the task) was expected to moderate the relationship between the
cultural values and the attitudes about the reward system. Situational interdependence
was expected to interact with the cultural values, such that a higher valuing of
achievement (expected in the United States, Hypothesis 1) would be insconsistent with a
highly interdependent situation, while a higher valuing of conformity (expected in Puerto

Rico, Hypothesis 1) would be more consistent with a highly interdependent task.

Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between attitudes about interdependence and
performance. In general, the more positive the attitudes about interdependence the better
the performance in the interdependent task. Based on the predictions presented in
Hypothesis 2a, in a highly interdependent situation the Puerto Ricans were expected to

perform better than the Americans.

Chapter 5

METHOD

Subjects

Eighty (80) students from the University Of Puerto Rico at Mayagfiez (UPR) and
eighty (80) from Michigan State University (MSU) were be the participants in this cross-
cultural experiment.

Experimental Design

The experimental design was a 2 (culture: United States or Puerto Rico) X 2
(interdependence in reward structure: high or low). The experimental task was building
towers with wooden blocks. The manipulation of reward interdependence was done by
assigning value to the blocks built into towers, creating a group pool of blocks which
received bonus points according to the group performance, and having the individual's
reward depend either on their own performance (low reward interdependence) or on the
performance of others (high ”reward interdependence).

Physical Facilities
The physical facilities both at MSU and at UPR-Mayagiiez were laboratories that

have at least three doors to rooms within it. The participant worked alone in one room.

38

39

As part of the cover story the “other participants” were presumably working in the other
rooms.
Materials

The experimental room was equipped with a large table to work on, a chair, a
video camera, and an audio tape player. The participants received most of the
instructions through an audio recording (one for each condition), and the tower building
performance was recorded on videotape. Throughout the experiment the participants
used paper-and-pencil for the values survey, attitude measures and manipulations checks.

Wooden blocks were used to build towers. The blocks were shaped as rectangles
with the following dimensions: 1" wide x 2%" length x %" depth. There were three kinds
of blocks varying in their coloring, this is, BLUE blocks, RED blocks, and YELLOW
blocks.

The audio instructions and the paper-and-pencil materials, such as questionnaires,
used in the United States were in English while those used in Puerto Rico were in
Spanish.

Procedure

There was only one participant coming into the laboratory for each experimental
session. One experimenter ran each session. The experiment took approximately 40
minutes to complete.

The experiment’s procedure consisted of five steps: (1) measurement of the
preference of the values conformity, achievement, and self-direction; (2) introduction of
the reward interdependence manipulation; (3) pre-task manipulations check and

assessment of attitudes toward level of reward interdependence; (4) task (tower building)

40

instructions, practice trial, and performance in three trials of tower building; and finally,
(5) post-task assessment Of attitudes and manipulations check.

The setup in the experimental room was extremely similar in the US and in PR.
One difference was that the room at PR was bigger, but the experiment’s materials were
in a corner in an area similar in size to the experimental room in the US. Also, the room
in PR had an Observational mirror, that allowed the experimenter to follow the
participant’s progress closely (but this had no significant impact on the procedure). This
is how the experimental rooms looked: (1) table against a wall, with three piles of blocks,
divided by color; (2) consent form on table with pencil next to it; (3) the bonus table
pasted on the wall, right in front of the participant; (4) a glued model Of a towers was
sitting on a corner of the table; (5) video camera on right corner, focusing on table; (6)
audio recording player on shelves to the right (left at Puerto Rico); (7) two envelopes on
Shelves to the right, one for the pre-task and the other for the post-task manipulations
checks/attitude measures. There is more information ahead on how the participants were
instructed by the audio recording to take and complete these surveys during the
experiment’s procedure.

Once the participant arrived at the laboratory, he/she was ushered into the
experimental room and asked to read and sign a consent form to participate in the
experiment (See Appendix C 1 for consent form in English and Appendix C2 for consent
form in Spanish). When they signed the consent form they were to slip the sheet under
the door, where the experimenter would pick it up (whenever this was required of the
participant, the Observational mirror in PR was useful because the experimenter could see

the participant walking to the door, thus the procedure moved more swiftly; while in the

41

US the experimenter had to hear the materials being slipped under the door, and
sometimes some time could go by before the experimenter noticed that a part of the
procedure had been finished). After the consent form had been turned in, the
experimenter would walk in with the value survey and ask the participant to complete it,
with the suggestion that this task was to be done while other participants were being setup
for the study: The value survey was titled "General Questionnaire".

The value survey was in the same format as the original survey created by
Schwartz (1992) which was used in the preliminary study, but was the revised survey that
resulted from the pilot study (see Chapter 2). This revised survey was designed to focus
on more reliable measures of the motivational dimensions of conformity and
achievement, combining original items and new items (see Appendix El for Experiment
Value Survey in English and Appendix E2 for the survey in Spanish). As in the original
survey, the participants were asked to report how important is to them (in a 9 point scale)
each one Of a list of one word values, which were followed by a brief explanation. The
survey had a total of 54 items, plus the age and sex questions, and it would take
approximately 10 minutes for the participant to complete.

Once the participant completed the survey and returned it to the experimenter
he/She was instructed to attend to the instructions in audio recording. The rest Of the
experiment was guided by this audio recording. The audio recording (one for each
condition) presented all of the instructions, including the introduction of the
manipulations and the description of how to build the towers [described in detail below]
(See Appendix D1 for specific instructions and transcript of the audio recording in

English and Appendix D2 for the specific instructions and transcript in Spanish).

42

The participants were told that they would work in a three-person group and that
the other two participants were in other rooms, going through the same procedure that
he/she was going through. They were told that each group member had 99 blocks, 33 of
each color to build towers during the trials. The participants were told that the amount of
blocks that each participant built into towers would go into a group pool of blocks, that
each block was worth one ( 1) point, and that the more blocks go into the pool the more
bonus points would be awarded to the group, and these in turn would be divided among
the participants. The participants were presented with the following system for awarding
bonus points. If the pool had 99 blocks or less the group would receive no (0) bonus
points; if the pool had between 100 and 150 blocks the bonus points would be 25; if the
pool had between 151 and 200, the bonus points would amount to 50; when the pool had
between 201 and 250 blocks, the group would receive 75 bonus points; and finally, if the
pool had between 251 and 297 blocks, the group would be awarded 100 bonus points.
The participants were instructed that the video recording of their performance would be
later used to calculate the amount of blocks that went into the pool after each trial with
the correspoding bonus points. They were told that it would not be until afier the
experiment had been completed that the score for each participant in each trial would be
calculated, but that these scores would be entered in a lottery and that at the end of the
study the winner participant would receive his/her awarded points for the winning trial in
dollars. Therefore, they were encouraged to think of the points as possible dollars. The
score for each of the three trials would be the entries in the lottery for each participant.

Any Of the three trials may be the winner, and the number of blocks accumulated by the

43

participant on that particular trial would indicate their actual money prize if they were to
win the lottery.

In the low reward interdependence condition, the participants were told that their
score would correspond to the number Of blocks that they built into towers plus their
proportion of the group bonus points. For the high reward interdependence condition the
instructions were that their personal score would be the average of the points accumulated
(built and proportional bonus points) by the other two group members, and that in the
same manner, each of the other group members would be awarded the average of the
scores accumulated by the other two participants.

Once the participants have received the recorded information regarding the group
manipulation and their corresponding level of reward interdepedence they were asked to
answer some questions about these aspects of the study. The participants were instructed
to take this exercise out of one of the envelopes on the shelves to the right (envelope
labeled “SCORING” / “PUNTUACION”). The exercise was a multiple-choice scoring
exercise in which the participants were given a hypothetical example of three group
members and the amount of blocks they had build into towers in a session. The
participants were first asked to calculate the amount of group bonus they would be
awarded and second to calculate the final score for one of the group members. The
answer for the the first question would be the same for both conditions. To reach the
correct answer the participants had to add the three amounts of blocks and go to the group
bonus table (pasted on the wall in front of them) and find out the corresponding group
bonus. The answer to the second answer varied depending on the condition. The

alternatives in this questions showed the actual formulas used to calculate the individual

44

score. Once they finished the exercise, the audio recording instructed them to call the
experimenter, who would come in and check that the answers to the scoring exercise were
correct. If the answers were incorrect, it was the job of the experimenter to ensure that
the participant understood the scoring procedure for their particular condition. In order to
ensure uniformity in these explanations, the experimenters had an “answer sheet” for each
condition that explained in simple terms the answers for each questions, and they were to
use this as their explaining tool.

Once explanations were delivered (if necessary) the experimenter would play the
audio recording and leave the room. The audio recording would then instruct the
participant to answer the pre-task attitudes measure. They would find the questionnaire
in an envelope on the shelves to the right (envelope labeled “SURVEY” /
“CUESTIONARIO”). They had 4 minutes to answer the questions. These questions
were intended to measure the degree to which the participants liked working in a group
and the way in which their personal score and that of the other group members would be
scored. This questionnaire was titled “Questionnaire #1” and it was formed by 11
questions asking: How much do you like... working in a group?, the way in which your
score will be awarded?, the way in which the score of the other group members will be
awarded?, depending on others for your score?, having others depend on you for their
score?, being independent of others?, sharing your success?, benefiting from the success
of Others?, working by yourself (not in a group)?, the way in which the bonus points will
be divided?, and, not being able to meet the other group members? (See Appendix F1 for
Pre-Task Questionnaire: Attitudes About Group and Reward Interdependence in English,

and Appedix F2 for the Spanish version). The participants had 1 minute to answer these

45

questions. When the allowed minute was finished, the audio recording instructed the
participant to slide the envelope under the door and the recording proceeded to introduce
the participant to the rules of the tower building task and the practice trial.

The tower building task used in this experiment was inspired in the method used
by Rosenbaum (1978) in studies of interdependence. Rosenbaum (1978) argued that a
task in which each member of a group is in control of a type of block (i.e. a type of
resource), was a particularly good method to study interdependence. Rosenbaum used
this task mainly to control the procedure or resource interdependence. The typical
experimental method involved 3 participants working together in the task of building a
tower. They would either work on one tower together, or on one tower each, depending
on the level of task interdependence. Each participant owned a type Of block (blocks
were classified according to color). Under this procedure/resource interdependence
conditions, Rosenbaum and others would study the effects of variables such as reward
structure,and crowding (e. g. Rosenbaum, Moore, Cotton, Gray, Cook, Hieser, and
Shovar, 1978; Heller, Groff, and Solomon, 1977).

The present experiment did not manipulate or study procedure/resource
interdependence. This experiment focused only on outcome or reward interdependence,
but the task was not developed only with this aspect of interdependence in mind. The
wooden blocks were painted in three different colors, just like Rosembaum did with the
materials used in his studies. The present study does not place the participants in a
situation of procedure interdependence, but rather the participants worked alone building
their own towers. While the task was not developed only to study reward intedependence

it was suitable for the type of manipulations that were planned and the effects that were

46

sought. The hypotheses of this experiment predict direct effects Of attitudes on
performance, as well as a system Of effects leading to the effect on behavior. Using this
type Of task Operationalizes the behaviors studied as basic manual tasks. The choice of a
manual task over other more cognitively engaging tasks limits the empirical questions
and answers to manual and very concrete behaviors, but nevertheless, these are questions
and answers .worthy of study.

The task was designed to be enjoyable but challenging. It was presumed to be
enjoyable, given it’s similarity to currently popular games (e. g J enga), and a variety of
challenging characteristics were built into the rules Of the task.

Each participant received 33 blocks of each color. There was a specific pattern to
follow in the building Of the towers (see Figure 4 for a drawing of the pattern of the
towers). The participants not only received audio instructions but they also had a glued
model tower right in front of them to use as a guide. A tower was formed by five (5)
floors. Each floor had one block of each color, and the blocks had to be touching each
other. The tower was to be started with a floor of vertical blocks followed by a floor Of
horizontal blocks, until 5 floors were completed. The vertically positioned blocks were
less stable than the horizontal blocks, because they had less surface on which to balance.
By having vertical blocks followed by horizontal blocks it was expected that the
participants would pay close attention to their moves, making the task more engaging.
The features of the towers, such as touching blocks and vertical blocks at the foundation,

were introduced with the expectation that they would make the task difficult.

47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: A Drawing of the Pattern Of the Towers
[The drawing is not to scale. All blocks were the same size. The darker horizontal lines divide the floors of
the tower.]

There were three (3) trials of building towers and a maximum of 2 1/2 minutes to
build as many towers as possible in a trial. The participants were encouraged to do the
task as fast as possible. When the time was over in each trial, the procedure—recording
instructed them to divide the blocks by color into three piles and to get ready for the next
trial. They had 30 seconds to reorganize the blocks and get ready for the next trial.

Once the participant received the recorded instructions he/She engaged in a tower
building practice session. Right before the practice session the procedure-recording
instructed the participant to STOP it and to call the experimenter in case he or she had
any questions regarding the procedure. After this practice session the experimenter made
sure that the participant understood all the details involved in the task. After this the

procedure-recording would take over again.

48

The procedure-recording led the participant through three trials Of building towers
with the wooden blocks. The video would tell the participant when to start, when to stop,
and when to reorganize the blocks in order to get ready for the next trial. Once three
trials were completed, the participant was asked by the experimenter to answer a series of
questions for manipulations check and further measures of attitudes. The questionnaire
consisted Of .19 questions assessing attitudes toward reward interdependence; liking of the
study; attributions of performance to effort, luck, ability, and factors out Of their control;
and attitudes about the task (see Appendix G1 for Post-Task Attitudes Measure and
Manipulations Check in English and Appendix G2 for the Spanish version).

To record the participation of students in the experiment, the participants at MSU
were asked to provide their Experiment Credit Card. At UPR there was no established
system Of recording the participation Of individuals in experiments; reward for
participation depended on arrangements made with the professor that allowed her
students to volunteer. All participants at UPR received credit toward their grade in their
Introductory Psychology class. The participants were thoroughly debriefed and thanked
for their participation (See Appendix H1 for the Debriefing Information in English and
Appendix H2 for the Spanish version).

Dependent Variables

The evaluation Of the values conformity and achievement, the attitudes toward
interdependence and manipulations check were dependent measures that were assessed
with the use of surveys. The other dependent measure was the performance of the
participants. This variable was evaluated with two criteria: (1) blocks on the towers at the

end of each trial, and (2) number of accidents during each trial. Accidents were coded

49

when parts of the towers or whole towers fell, or if and when any of the task rules were
broken, for example, if a participant used more than one hand to keep a tower from
falling. The video recording Of the participation was used for the coding of the

performance.

Chapter 6

RESULTS

This chapter is divided into six sections, each one pertaining to a different aspect
Of the data collected. The order Of the sections is the following: Samples, Values,
Manipulations Check, Attitudes, Performance, and Model.
1. Samples

In terms of education, gender, and age, the samples from both cultures were very
similar.
Puerto Rico

At the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagiiez (UPR), 80 participants were
recruited from various sections of Introduction to Psychology. Students were asked to
volunteer their participation in exchange for credit towards their grade in the course. Of
these participants, 28 were males and 52 were females. The average age of the
participants was 19.8, with a range of 17 to 27 years of age.
United States

At Michigan State University (MSU), 80 students from the subject pool
participated in this study. Students were asked to volunteer their participation in

exchange for credit towards their grade in the course. Twenty were males and 60

50

51

females. The average age Of the participants was 19.7, with a range of 17 to 41 years Of

age.

11. Values
A. Study of the value scales

The items corresponding to the value indexes of achievement and conformity
were determined based on the pilot study of the survey along with a preliminary
exploration Of the values survey data collected in the experiment. The indexes were
revised to improve their reliability. For this study, the reliability of the value indexes of
achievement and conformity was assessed within each culture. The achievement value
index included the items: ambitious, successful, aspirations, purposeful, and
accomplishing. For the achievement index, in PR the alpha reliability was .77, and the
interrater agreement (rwg) was .95. For this same index, at the US the alpha reliability
was .82, and the rwg = .96.

The value cluster of conformity was formed by the items: courtesy, honoring
parents and elders, cooperation, observance, sharing, self-restraint, consideration, and
adherence. In PR the alpha reliability of this index was .87 and the rwg = .96. In the US
the alpha reliability for the index was .86 and the interrater agreement was .96.

The study of the internal consistency of the value scales within each culture
showed that the scales were reliable to use for fiirther analysis. Also, the high rwg’s
suggest that if necessary, these values could be aggregated to the cultural level. But, will
the value indexes in this study be capturing the same values addressed in the value survey

used in the preliminary study? This is an important question because the hypotheses for

52

this experiment were based on the findings of the preliminary study. While the the
preliminary study used what has been argued to be a universal measure of cultural values
(Schwartz, 1992), the present experiment focused only on the cultures of Puerto Rico and
the United States. It could be argued that the achievement and conformity indexes have
been customized for these two cultures and may not apply in the same way universally.
For the purpose of the present study, possible differences between the original Schwartz
(1992) indexes of achievement and conformity, and those used for the analyses Of the
experiment’s data are not fundamental to the study Of the proposed hypotheses. In any
case, tO explore this issue, Pearson correlations were done between the new indexes and
the Old indexes. The one problem was with the item of “influential” which was not
included in the experiment’s value survey. The correlation between the Old index of
achievement (without influential) and the new index of achievement was .856. The
correlation between the Old index of conformity and the new index of conformity was
.642. As with the pilot data, these results support the comparison and equivalence of the
old indexes and the new indexes.

Another way of exploring the question Of the equivalence of the items in each of
the scales is by looking at the item-total correlations from the reliability analyses. Table 4
and Table 5 present the item-total correlations from the reliability analyses, for the items
used in the revised indexes. It is apparent that the new and Old items are quite

comparable.

53

Table 4: Item-Total Correlations for Achievement

 

 

 

ITEM Correlation with
Achievement
Successful” .749
Purposeful .814
Accomplishing .748
Ambitious* .642
Aspirations .758

 

*original items

Table 5: Item-Total Correlations for Conformity

 

 

 

ITEM Correlation with
Conformity

Courtesy .661
Sharing .728
Honoring Parents and Elders* .729
Self-Restraint .728
Consideration .761
Observance (Of rules) .802
Adherence (to rules) .631
Cooperation .727

 

*original items

B. Study of the Use of the Scale

Were the participants in both countries using the scale in the same way? In the

preliminary study, the Puerto Rican participants tended to use the higher end of the scale

while the American participants, overall, tended more towards the center of the scale.

In this study, once again, a statistical difference was found between the average

rating of the participants in PR and in the US (t(158.4)=2.06, p<.04). The average rating

of the Puerto Rican participant was significantly higher (M = 5.13) than that of the

American participant (M = 4.88). As in the preliminary study, all cross-cultural analysis

were done with the standardized scores Of the scales. What was standardized was the

54

way in which the participants rated the value indexes and this was achieved by
standardizing the ratings at the individual level. This means that the mean rating of each
participant becomes zero and what will be compared will be the degree to which each
rating departs from the participant's mean. This way we are standardizing the use Of the
scale, rather than the value index.

C. Within Culture Analyses

1. Puerto Rico

In the Puerto Rican sample achievement was ranked higher (M=5.53) than
conformity (M=5.05) [these are the raw ratings, from a scale from —1 to 7]. This was not
the predicted pattern for this culture. An one-way AN OVA comparing the standardized
scores of these two values within this culture showed that there was a significant
difference between the ratings (F(1, 159)=26.9, p<.0001). The mean standardized rating
of achievement (M=.70) was significantly higher than the mean rating for conformity
(M=.28). This was not the predicted pattern for this culture, but the more important issue
of the relative importance of values across cultures will be addressed in the cross-cultural
comparisons.

2. United States

In the US sample, the value of achievement was also ranked higher (M=5.49) than
the value of conformity (M=4.67) [these are raw ratings]. The analysis of variance
showed that there was a significant difference between the standard scores Of the values
(F(1, l58)=77.7, p<.0001). Achievement was rated significantly higher (M=.86) than

conformity (M=.06).

55

The within-culture analyses Showed that the pattern of value preferences is similar
within both cultures, with achievement being prefered over conformity.

D. Cross-cultural Comparisons with Standardized Scores

A 2 (culture) by 2 (value scales: achievement and conformity) Repeated-Measures
AN OVA was done with the standardized indexes. This analysis showed no main effect
for culture (F ( 1, 158=.57, p<.45), but there were a significant main effect for the value
scales (F (1, 15 8)=101 .4, p<.0001), and a significant culture by scales interaction (F (1,
158)=8.7, p<.004).

The main effect Of the value scales is that the ratings for achievement (M=.78)
were higher than the ratings for conformity (M=. 17). In this context, the lack of main
effect of culture shows that in both cultures achievement is preferred over conformity. In
the preliminary study the was a barely marginal effect on this direction.

These findings support Hypothesis 1, which argued that there would be cross-
cultural differences in the preference Of the values of achievement and conformity.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that Americans would value achievement more than the Puerto
Ricans, and that conversely the Puerto Ricans would value conformity more than the
Americans.

The significant interaction between culture and the values was further explored
with simple pairwise comparisons, presented in Table 6, and with the graphical

representation in Figure 4.

56

Table 6: Comparisons of Values Between and Within Cultures in the Experiment
[* p<.05, ** p<.01]

 

 

 

US achievement US conformity PR achievement PR conformity
US achievement 0 -10.29** -2, 54* -8.29**
US conformity 0 8.60" 2.76**
PR achievement 0 -6.34**
PR conformity O
1
A\Achievement US
0.8

 

.cm\h\iement PR
0.6 K
\ + PR
+ US
0.4
\\O Conformity PR
0.2
\ Conformity US

Achievement Conformity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: Culture x Values Interaction in Experiment

The more interesting finding is that, although across cultures there is a higher
preference for achievement over conformity, when the cultures are compared, these
values differ in their relative preference. In the cross-cultural comparison on the value of

achievement, we see that in the US this value is relatively more important than it is in

57

Puerto Rico. On the other hand, conformity is relatively more important in Puerto Rico
than in the United States. In conclusion, these findings support the predictions of
Hypothesis 1 regarding the difference value preferences between these two cultures.

The only finding here that is not completely consistent with those of the
preliminary study is the cross-cultural tendency for a preference of achievement over
conformity. In the preliminary study there was a weak marginal effect of the values in
this direction, but a crossover of the value preferences across these two cultures was
clearly evident. At this point we have to go back to the issue Of the equivalence of the
indexes used in the preliminary study and those used for the analyses of the experiment’s
data. The correlations between the Old indexes (those used in the preliminary study) and
the new indexes (those used in the experiment’s analyses) presented at the beginning of
this section, suggest that both sets of indexes are addressing similar constructs. It could
also be argued that these are customized indexes that apply only to the way in which these
two cultures understand and interpret achievement and conformity Other explanations for
this difference between the preliminary study and the experiment’s data may be based on
the method of data collection. In the preliminary study the data was collected as an
independent survey, in the classroom, not in a laboratory with a two-way mirror and as
part of an experiment. In the present study, the participants answered the value survey on
the table in which all of the materials for the following tower building task were placed.
In this setting, the participants may well have been aware that they were soon to
participate in an individual motor task and this may have made their motivation for
achievement more salient. Also, for the Puerto Rican this was a completely new

environment and situation, while the American participants may have already participated

58

in previous laboratory studies. Given the novelty of the situation and the possibility Of
being observed as individuals may have contributed to a higher motivation for
achievement. If the setting Of the data collection had an effect on the saliency Of
achievement, this way affecting the ratings, then the validity of these indexes as
assessments of cultural values may be questioned. Cultural values are defined as abstract
preferences that are pervasive and transcend situations. Yet, the high levels of within-
culture agreement on these indexes suggests that these are more than just individual
preferences subject to the priming influences Of an experimental setting.

On a long term perspective, these findings may also suggest that the value
preferences in the Puerto Rican culture may be in transition, from a collectivistic
approach to a more individualistic approach, a possibility that makes historical sense
considering the strong influence Of the American culture on the Island. However, it is
hard to believe that in the course of 4 years, since the preliminary data was collected, the
value system Of a culture has changed this drastically. Still, in terms of the relative
importance Of achievement and conformity across cultures, the results are consistent with

the findings of the preliminary study.

III. Manipulations Check

During the course Of the experiment, the participants completed two
questionnaires. To see if the scales in the questionnaires were used in the same way in
both cultures the mean rating across questions was studied within each culture. For
questionnaire #1, the mean rating across questions in PR was 4.33 and in the US 4.26

(t(l44)=.49, p<.63). In questionnaire #2, the mean rating in PR was 4.07 and in the US it

59

was 3.91 (t(149)=-1.37, p<.18). No statistical differences were found between the
cultures’ mean ratings in both questionnaires, therefore all analyses were done with the
raw ratings.

The Post-Task Survey (Questionnaire #2) was composed of 19 questions. Some
questions were designed as manipulation checks and Others were assessments of attitudes
and attributiOns. A Principal Components Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation was
done with the items of Questionnaire #2 across cultures, and for the purpose of
verification, the analysis was repeated within culture to see if the factors emerged in the
same way across the cultures and within each culture. Out of the 19 items in this
questionnaire, 6 factors emerged. The factors where the same across cultures and within
each culture.

The first factor (Eigenvalue[across cultures]=4.l7) was formed by the items 2, 4,
5, and 6. The questions were: (2) How much was your performance influenced by the
other group members?, (4) How much was your performance affected negatively by the
other group members?, (5) How much was your performance affected positively by the
other group members?, and (6) How much did your performance depend on the other
group members? This factor was titled "Perceived Performance Interdependence."

The second factor (Eigenvalue[across cultures]=3.46) included items 7, l8, and
19. The questions for these items were: (7) How much did your reward depend on the
other group members?, (18) How much was your score dependent on the performance of
others?, and (19) To what degree was the score of the other group members dependent on

your performance? This factor will be referred to as "Perceived Reward

Interdependence."

60

The third factor (Eigenvalue[across cultures]=2.l 1) included items 3, 10, and 14.
The questions corresponding to these items were: (3) How difficult was the tower
building task?, (10) TO what degree would you attribute your performance tO luck?, and
(14) How difficult was building to towers with one hand? This factor was titled
"Difficulty."

The fourth factor (Eigenvalue[across cultures]=l .39) included items 16 and 17.
These two items made reference to the scoring method. Question 16 asked "How much
did you like the way in which your points were awarded?”, and question 17 asked "To
what degree was the method of scoring points fair?”

The last two factors were formed by lone items each. Item number I loaded as an
independent factor. The question was "How much did you like to participate in this
study?" (Eigenvalue[across cultures]=l .22). The other factor was item 11, "To what
degree would you attribute your performance in this task to your ability?"
(Eigenvalue[across cultures]=l .04).

The first two factors, perceived performance interdependence and perceived
reward interdependence were used as the manipulations' check. Two (culture) x 2
(condition) AN OVAs where done with each Of these factors to see if the manipulations
were effective in persuading the participants to consider their situation one of
interdependence, according to their condition. For the perceived performance
interdependence factor a main effect for condition was found (F(1, 159)=10.18, p<.002)
while there was no main effect for culture (F(1, 159)=.497, p<.48). According to these

results, the manipulation worked the same in both cultures. The participants reported

61

having experienced a higher level of perceived performance interdependence (M=2.96)
than in the low interdependence condition (M=2.21).

On the issue of perceived reward interdependence, the 2 (culture) x 2 (condition)
AN OVA showed that there was also a main effect for condition (F(1,159)=30. 15,
p<.0001) while there was no main effect for culture (F(1, 159)=.283, p<.59). As well as
the previous manipulation check, this one demonstrates that the instructions worked and
that the participants were aware of the level Of outcome interdependence present in their
situation. In the condition Of high interdependence the participants perceived their reward
as more interdependent (M=4.90) than did the participants in the low interdependence
condition (M=3.53).

The other four factors that emerged in the Post-Task Survey were measures Of
attitudes and attributions. While these are not manipulations' check, they are not either
the target attitudes about interdependence that will be discussed under the "Attitudes"
section of the results. The analyses on these remaining four factors of Questionnaire #2
are presented below.

Attitudes toward the scoring method were an important element of the reward
interdependence manipulation. Factor 4 included the two items (16 and 17) that
addressed the issue of scoring, asking how much the participants liked the scoring and
considered the method a fair one. A 2 (culture) x 2 (condition) AN OVA was performed
on this factor and there was only a main effect for condition (F(1,159)=18.95, p<.0001).
In the condition Of high interdependence the participants liked less the scoring method

and considered it less fair (M=3.89) than in the low interdependence condition (M= 4.69).

62

On the factor Of difficulty, while two of the items (items 3 and 14) clearly address

the question of how difficult the task was, one of the items asked weather the

performance may be attributed to luck (item 10). The participants may have seen the

tower building task as one that ultimately was dependent on luck, that it was difficult

because it depended on luck, or that the difficulty depended on how lucky they were. A 2

(culture) by 2 (condition) ANOVA was done with this factor and while there were no

main effects for culture or condition, there was a significant interaction between culture

and condition (F(1, 159)=8.67, p<.004). See Figure 6 for a graphical representation Of

this interaction and Table 7 for the corresponding simple comparisons.

Table 7: Culture x Situational Interdependence on Ratings of Task Difficulty

 

US — High US - Low PR - High PR — Low
US - High -2.88** -.89 .409
US —Low 1.66 377’”
PR — High -1.36
PR — Low

P<.Ol**

 

63

 

3.9

3.7 /
3.5 ,
“R - HIGH/ +PR

3.3
+US

3'1 (US-HIGH \
PR-LOW

2.9

/. US-LOW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.7 r
High Interdependence Low Interdependence

Figure 6: Culture x Situational Interdependence on Ratings of Task Difficulty

Americans in the Low Interdependence condition rated the task as more difficult
(M=3.78) than did their cultural counterparts in the High Interdependence situation
(M=3.05) (t(75)=-2.88, p<.006). The only significant cross-cultural comparison shows
that Americans in the Low Interdependence situation also rated the task as more difficult
(M=3.78) than did the Puerto Ricans in the same Low Interdependence situation
(M=2.95) (t(80)=-3.77, p<.0004).

There are a variety Of issues that may have played a role in these effects. The two
significant simple comparisons were associated to the high rating of task difficulty
reported by the American participants in the Low Interdependence condition. In this
condition the participants were “aware” of other group members that presumably were
working along with them in the same task, but their profit would depend mainly on their

own individual performance. Through the instructions the role of the other group

64

members was minimized, by insisting that even the bonus to which all group members
would contribute, were a small amount compared to the points they were to score with
their own efforts on the table. Participants were reminded that their success depended
mainly on their own performance. Still, there were these “mysterious and elusive” others
that were in some, possibly confusing way part of this task. The American participants
may have been reacting to this uncertainty with their high rating of difficulty in the Low
Interdependence condition. Also, the association between the straight forward difficulty
items and the luck attributions item, may suggest that in the Low Interdependence
condition the Americans felt that their performance was due to chance and that in some
way this made the task difficult. Luck attributions and uncertainty about the role of the
other group members may have combined to cause this relationship between culture and
condition on the rating of task difficulty.

If the participants associated the difficulty in the task with luck in the
performance, then it is relevant to see how they scored on the ability attributions for the
performance. Item 11, which loaded as a factor by itself, asked the question Of the degree
to which the participants thought that their performance was due to their ability. The 2
(culture) x 2 (condition) ANOVA showed that there was a main effect for culture on this
attribution (F(1, 159)=5.96, p<.02), but no main effect for condition or any significant
interactions. The Puerto Rican participants rated ability as an important factor in the
performance (M=5.3 5), more so than did the Americans (M=4.8).

Finally, how much did the participants enjoy the study? This was the first item in
the post-task questionnaire, and when these ratings were analyzed with a 2 (culture) x 2

(condition) ANOVA there was a significant main effect Of culture (F(1, 159)=16.73,

65

p<.0001), while the situational interdependence (condition) did not have an effect on the
enjoyment of the task. Overall, regardless Of the situational interdependence (condition)
the Puerto Rican participants enjoyed more the study (M=5.89) than did the American

participants (M=5.1 1).

IV. Attitudes

The Pre-Task Survey (Questionnaire #1) was completed after the instructions for
the task were introduced, this is after the manipulations, but before the actual
performance. The purpose of this survey was to get an assessment of the participants’
attitudes about different aspects of the instructions and task before their performance.
Remember that because no statistical difference was found between the cultures’ mean
rating in this questionnaire all analyses were done with the raw ratings.

Questionnaire #1 was designed to assess the attitudes of the participants about the
rules of the task, before they engaged in the task. The questionnaire was headed by the
question: “how much do you like:” followed by a list Of eleven aspects of the rules and
task. Each aspect of the task was then to be rated in a 7-point scale, ranging conceptually
from “not at all” to “very much”. Within culture Principal Components Factor Analyses
with Varimax rotations of this questionnaire yielded two clear factors. The two factors
also emerged in the same order in both cultures. The first factor was related to attitudes
about interdependence while the second was associated with attitudes about
independence. Both factors are discussed below.Attitude of Interdependence

This factor was formed by items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 [Eigenvaluesz PR=4.12,

US=4.52]. These items asked: How much do you like: (1) working in a group?, (2) the

66

way in which your score will be calculated?; (3) the way in which the score of the other
group members will be calculated?; (4) depending on others for your score?; (5) that
others depend on you for their score?; (7) sharing your success?; and (10) the way in
which the bonus scores will be divided?

Attitudes of Interdependence

This factor was formed by items 6 and 9 [Eigenvaluesz PR=1.58, US=1.45]. Item
6 was “How much do you like being independent from other?”, and item 9 was “How
much do you like working on your own (not in a group)?”

The Box test of homogeneity of covariance showed that, when we look at these
attitudes across cultures and conditions, there is a significant difference in the covariance
matrices of the dependent variables across the groups (Box’s M = 32.74, F (9,
274777)=3.5 5, p<.0001). Thus, the assumption of homogeneity of covariance of the
Repeated-Measures ANOVA is violated. The relationships in this set of data were
explored with a MANOVA, with culture and condition as two independent variables and
the two attitudes (independence and interdependence) as two correlated dependent
variables. There was a main effect of condition on the attitude of interdependence (F(1,
15 8)=1 0.79, p<.001). The participants in the high interdependence condition reported a
more negative attitude toward interdependence (M=3.98) than did the participants in the
low interdependence condition (M=4.59). On the other hand, the situational
interdependence (condition) had no effect over the attitude of independence (F(1,
158)=. 103, p<.8). In both conditions the mean rating for the independence attitude was
4.9. We find a similar pattern with the independent variable Of culture. Culture had only

a marginal main effect on the attitude Of interdependence (F(1,] 5 8)=3.35, p<.069). In

67

the United States the attitude of interdependence was slightly more negative (M=4.12)
than it was in Puerto Rico (M=4.45). The was no interaction between culture and
condition on either attitude (F(1,158)=0, p<l).

The attitude about independence was not affected by either the experimental
condition or the culture of the participants. On the other hand, the attitudes about
interdependence were influenced by both the culture and the experience of

interdependence in the experiment.

V. Performance

In Puerto Rico, the performance of 4 of the participants was eliminated because
they were incompletely or improperly recorded on video, therefore there were 38
individuals in each condition in this culture, for a total of 76 Puerto Rican participants.

The performance data was recorded on video and later coded. The performance
data was coded by the principal investigator. Two aspects of the task were coded; first
the amount of blocks standing in towers at the end of the each trial, which was taken as
the principal assessment of performance, and second, the errors made during each trial.
An error was coded when: (1) towers or part of towers fell, (2) when the participant
briefly used more than one hand to keep a tower from falling, (3) when towers were
briefly built incorrectly, and (4) when the clock was ignored, even if only for a few
seconds. The types Of errors were not distinguished. If any of these violations occurred it
would be coded as error, regardless of the type of error. If the participants broke the rules
systematically and throughout the task the data was not included. For example, a

participant in Puerto Rico build the towers against the facing wall, which of course gave

68

him an unfair advantage, and that set of data was eliminated. The information coded
from the video recordings of the participants’ performance was Obj ective in nature. There
were no subjective judgments to be made as part of the coding. The specific information
that was coded was listed above, and these criteria were clear and easy to Observe. Recall
that all that was recorded on video was the participant’s arm and hand and the table where
the blocks were being built. The task of the coder was limited to counting blocks built
into towers and to recording errors, which were coded according to the list presented
above. While coders blind to the hypotheses would be ideal for any and all studies
involving coding of behavior, in this particular study the coded information was
objective, and this is why the principal investigator was the only coder Of the behavior
data.

A 2 (culture) x 2 (condition) x 3 (trials Of building towers) Repeated-Measures
AN OVA was done and the only significant result was a main effect for trial order, which
simply reflects a practice effect. The later the trial, the more blocks were built into
towers, regardless of culture or condition (F(2, 312)=30.72, p<.0001). The average
number of blocks built into towers in the first trial was 46.7 (out of a total Of 99 blocks),
in the second trial the average was 48.9, and in the third trial 52.3. Table 8 presents the
means, standard deviations and N’s corresponding to the cells in this Repeated-Measures
AN OVA. This table is presented for the benefit of the reader interesting in studying any

possible trends that may not have been captured by the main effects.

Table 8: Condition x Culture x Trials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRIAL CONDITION CULTURE MEAN of blocks STD. DEV. N
built into towers

TRIAL 1 HIGH US 49.25 15.5 40
PR 45.05 13.1 38

TOTAL 47.2 14.4 78

LOW US 46.48 15.33 40

PR 46.21 13.07 38

TOTAL 46.35 14.18 78

TOTAL US 47.86 15.38 80

PR 45.63 13.01 76
TOTAL 46.78 14.27 156

TRIAL 2 HIGH US 51.35 14.94 40
PR 47.76 12.68 38

TOTAL 49.60 13.91 78

LOW US 48.42 14.54 40

PR 48.11 12.58 38

TOTAL 48.27 13.53 78

TOTAL US 49.89 14.72 80

PR 47.93 12.54 76
TOTAL 48.94 13.69 156

TRIAL 3 HIGH US 55.05 14.06 40
PR 51.79 12.12 38

TOTAL 53.46 13.17 78

LOW US 50.8 15.89 40

PR 51.58 11.69 38

TOTAL 51.18 13.92 78

TOTAL US 52.93 15.06 80

PR 51.68 11.83 76
TOTAL 52.32 13.55 156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis 2b predicted a relationship between the culture of the
participants and the performance in the task, moderated by the level of interdependence in
the experimental condition. This portion of hypothesis 2 was founded on the prediction
that culture would have a relationship with performance. Hypothesis 23 predicted a

relationship between culture and performance, which would be mediated by the attitudes

70

toward the task. According to the Repeated-Measures AN OVA, culture had no effect on
the performance in this task (F(1, 152)=.92, p<.339). An examination Of the mean
number of blocks built into towers in each trial within each culture, and across
conditions, shows that the Americans built approximately 2 more blocks into towers than
did the Puerto Ricans. See Table 9 for the mean of blocks built into towers in each trials,
within each Culture and trial. The directional analysis for the effect of culture on the

amount Of blocks built into towers across the trials was not significant (t(1, 152)=.96,

p>.1).

Table 9: Culture x Trials

 

UNITED STATES PUERTO RICO

 

TRIAL 1 47.8 45.6
TRIAL 2 49.9 47.9
TRIAL 3 52.9 51.7

 

 

There was also no main effect for condition on the performance (F(1, 152)=.5 86,
p<.445). See Table 10 for the group statistics on this analysis. An exploration of the
mean number of blocks built into towers within each condition and across cultures, shows
that in the high interdependence condition the participants built from 1 to 2 more blocks

per trial. A directional test shows that this difference is not significant (t(1, 152)=.76,

p>.1).

71

Table 10: Condition x Trials

 

 

HIGH IN T ERDEPENDENCE LOW INT ERDEPENDENCE
TRIAL 1 47.2 46.3
TRIAL 2 49.6 48.3
TRIAL 3 53.5 51.2

 

 

The analysis that would be most informative in terms of the model proposed in the
hypothesis is the test of the interaction between culture and condition on their effect on
performance. The Repeated-Measures AN OVA showed no Significant interaction
between culture and condition (F(1, 152)=.987, p<.32). Table 8 presented the group
means corresponding to this analysisA study of the descriptive statistics of the errors
made in each trial shows that the median in all three trials was 0 errors and the mode in
all three trials was also 0 errors. The average number of errors in trial 1 was .59, in trial 2
there were an average of .69 errors, and in trial 3 a mean of .51 errors. Clearly, the
number of errors was extremely low, suggesting that this manual task was not difficult at
all. A MAN OVA was done with the errors made in each trial as the dependent variables,
and condition and culture as the independent variables. There were no main effects for
culture (F(1, 156)=.334, p<.56) or condition F(l, 156)=.223, p<.64). Also, there were not
within trials effects (F(1, 156)=1.84, p<.16).

The two dependent variables that constituted the performance assessments did not
seem to be influenced in any way by other variables, such as the culture of the

participants and the level Of situational interdependence. The assessments of

72

performance in this task proved to be immune to the influence Of the contextual variables

of culture and condition, or the combination of both.

VI. Model

The cross-level model proposed in Hypothesis 2 predicted a mediated and
moderated model that would link culture tO behaviors through the cultural values, and
attitudes under various levels of situational interdependence. What was expected was
that culture would influence the performance in the interdependent task through the
mediation of the cultural values Of conformity and/or achievement, and the attitude about
interdependence, consistent with Social Adaptation Theory. Also, the situation or
experimental condition was predicted to moderate the effect of the cultural values on the
attitudes. Some of the results already uncovered are consistent with the proposed model,
while others are not.

A different model to the one proposed in the Hypotheses chapter was tested.
Based on the findings of the experiment, a new model was drawn and‘tested, a model that
seemed to better reflect the patterns found in the previous analyses. Figure 7 presents a
graphical representation of the model that was tested. Each link has been assigned a
number to facilitate the discussion of the results. There were 4 links tested in this model:
(1) culture’s effect on values; (2) culture’s effect on the interdependence attitude; (3) the
effect of situational interdependence on the interdependence attitude; and, (4) the

mediation of values between culture and the interdependence attitude.

73

Figure 7: The Tested Model

CULTURE ®

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTITUDE OF

CULTURAL VALUES ““““““ + INTERDEPENDENCE

 

 

 

 

 

 
  
 

  

SITUATIONAL
INTERDEPENDENCE

 
 

Previous analyses showed that culture did have an effect on the cultural values of
conformity and achievement. Support was also found for a relationship between culture
and the interdependence attitude (link #2), although this relationship was marginal in
significance. There was strong support for a direct effect of situational interdependence
on the interdependence attitude (link #3). In order to test this model a series of Analyses
of Covariance were done to explore the possibility of the mediation Of values between
culture and the interdependence attitude (link #4). Performance is not addressed in this
model because no cross-cultural differences or conditional/situational effects were found
on the performance in the interdependent task.

Two ANCOVAs were done, each to one testing different aspects of the possible
mediation of cultural values. In all analyses the independent variables were culture and
condition (situational interdependence) and the dependent variable was the

interdependene attitude. One analysis had achievement (2 score) as a covariate, and the

74

other conformity (z score) as a covariate. Neither of the two analyses supported a
mediation of values in the relationship between culture and the interdependence attitude.
Recall that the direct effect Of culture on the attitude was Of a p<.09. When achievement
was used as a covariate the effect of culture on the attitude was F(l, 159)=3.26, p<.07.
When conformity was the covariate the effect of culture was F (1, 159)=2.07, p<. 15.
Considering that the original effect of culture on the interdependence attitude was
marginal, none Of these aspects Of the cultural values can be considered as mediators in
this relationship. Introducing the values as covariates did not have a meaningful effect on
the relationship between culture and the attitudes. The MAN COVA treats the cultural
values as individual levels variables. The cultural values could have been studied as
cultural level variables, since the degree of agreement, as tested with the Interrater
Reliability/Agreement Index, were high within both cultures, on both achievement and
conformity. In this study there was not much to explore with such cultural level
variables, since there were no interesting dependent variables with strong associations
with culture. But, the high level Of agreement found in the ratings of these values within
each of the cultures studied, suggest that these values are cultural level phenomena, and
may be used as such in future studies.

The effect of situational interdependence was consistently strong across the
ANCOVAs. This variable was introduced as an independent variable into the
AN COVAS because it had shown such strong and consistent effects on the
interdependence attitude on the previous analyses. Cultural values played no role in this
relationship between situational interdependence and the interdependence attitude.

Across the three AN COVAs this effect remained very significant. With achievement as a

75

covariate the effect was F (1, 159)=10.03, p<.002; with conformity as a covariate the
effect was F (1, 159)=1 1.12, p<.001; and, with the difference rating as a covariate the
effect was F(l, 159)=10.13, p<.002.

Culture did affect the value system in ways consistent with the preliminary study.
Americans are higher than Puerto Ricans in achievement, and Puerto Ricans are higher
than Americans in conformity (link #1). Another effect of culture was that on the
attitudes about interdependence, such that Puerto Ricans were more likely to accept
interdependence, while Americans are more likely to reject it (link #2). The relationship
between these two cultures and the values of achievement and conformity is stronger and
than the relationship between the cultures and the attitudes about interdependence. The
better predictor Of attitudes of interdependence was found in the proximate context Of
interdependence or what has been referred to as situational interdependence (link #3).
Finally, the mediation Of the cultural values of achievement and/or conformity (and/or the

difference between them) did not find support in this data (link #4).

Chapter 7

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to systematically explore some Of the issues
relevant to our increasing cross-cultural interactions and multicultural experiences. This
Study was designed to explore the relationship between culture and the experience Of
interdependence. Interdependence is the experience Of depending on others and having
those others depend on you. As a native of a collectivistic culture, living in an
individualistic society, I understood the experience Of interdependence to be one with
socio-cultural roots. But where specifically are those roots? What about culture, society,
or context defines this experience of interdependence? These were the general questions
that drove this study. This research explored the underlying ties between culture and
behavior, a link that has eluded many a cross-cultural researcher. In general, there were
three levels Of information acquired in this study. From abstract to concrete, information
was acquired on cultural values, second about attitudes about interdependence, and
finally about behavior in an interdependent task. The more interesting findings were at
the abstract level Of the cultural values, while the more disappointing where in the

behavior measures, possibly for being too concrete.

76

77

The task used in this study of interdependence was purposefully designed as a
very concrete and manual task. The reasoning was that if the task is taking place in a
context in which cultural values are relevant, then even in manual tasks we should be able
to observe some effects. Another consideration were the possible applications and
implications in mind when the study was being developed. From the point Of view Of the
United States, when we look at the issue of a global economy in which industries are
searching internationally for resources, particularly human resources, what we are
commonly witnessing is the movement of manufacturing industries, rather than service
and information based organizations. In this study, we wanted to explore the possibility
that even manual labor takes place in contexts than can have cultural implications.
Unfortunately, the present experiment did not capture this effect. The degree to which the
participants liked or disliked the reward system seemed to be irrelevant to the manual
work. The task used in the experiment was not only a simple, fairly error free task, but it
was also very brief, and it did not require any type of social contact with the presumed
fellow co-worker. These characteristics raise more questions about other ways in which
an effect of culture and or attitudes on performance may have been captured. A longer
period of task performance may have created conditions in which the attitudes about
interdependence would have become more relevant and possibly influential. A more
difficult task could also have resulted in different effects. Manual tasks in the workplace,
usually require skill and can be very involving. It could be argued that the more invested
the person is in the task, the more likely they are to be influenced by features of the task.
These are all questions that may be addressed in future research. Even the materials that

were created for this tower building task can possibly be used for more complex and

78

engaging manual tasks. Based on the present study, no arguments can be made about
cross-cultural differences of behavior in an interdependent task. Can the performance in
motor tasks be influenced at all by cultural background? Or is it that the abstract
influence of culture does not come into play when the task is labor is mostly manual? In
this study the task was taking place in a context with cultural implications, yet no effect
Of such a context was observed. Under what conditions will the cultural interpretation of
the situation become relevant and influencing? Will a difficult task, one that requires
more physical energy and/or cognitive involvement, be affected by the attitudes and
relevant cultural values?

Another aspect of this task that may explain the lack of effects on the performance
assessments, is the type of interdependence that was studied, and by default, that which
was not studied. Out of the four characteristics listed by DeLamater (1974) as defining a
group, only one applied to the group phenomena studied in this experiment, outcome
interdependence. The participants in this study were induced to perceive their situation as
one Of either high outcome interdependence or low outcome interdependence, but they
were not subject to actual procedure or resource interdependence. Moreover, the
participants in the study worked in isolation, and had no contact with the presumed fellow
group members. In terms of the defining characteristics Of groups, these participants (1)
did not interact with other individuals, (2) could not develop perceptions of the other
group members, or develop shared perceptions, and (3) could not develop affective or any
other type of ties with the other presumed group members. Some of the interesting
findings in previous work on interdependence has looked at social behaviors, such as

helping fellow group members in high interdependence situations, and the sabotaging of

79

group members in competition environments (Rosenbaum, et al., 1978). This study did
not address the type of interdependence that emerges when people are interacting face to
face, and when their performance or outcome depends on the directly observable behavior
Of others. On a positive note, the task designed for this study, could easily be modified to
address these and other questions regarding the type of interdependence. In conclusion,
performance. in a manual task that is simple and does not require social interaction does
not seem tO be influenced by either the culture of the worker or the degree of outcome
interdependence. While this was not the expected finding, this is a valuable piece of
information with possible applications. Organizations that are seeking internationally for
a workforce to perform a labor that fits this description may not need to be overly
concerned about cultural differences or attitudes about interdependence. The present
study was clearly designed as a laboratory experiment and the generalizability of the
findings to real world work settings would depend on the common characteristics
between the task and real jobs.

The study Of the cultural values raised a variety of issues. Overall, three studies
collected data on cultural values. First a preliminary study with the original, cross-
culturally tested indexes developed by Schwartz (1992). Second, a pilot study on an
extended survey, that sought to improve the reliability of the indexes. And, third, cultural
values data was collected as part Of the main experiment. The composition of the indexes
used for the analyses Of the experiment’s data was determined by taking in consideration
structural analyses as well as reliability and agreement analyses. In the analyses of the
experiment’s data, the value indexes were studied as individual level variables and not as

collective, cultural level variables. This was mostly a function Of the weak effects that

80

culture had on dependent variables, other than the value indexes. But, the agreement
analyses showed that within both cultures there was high agreement on the ratings of both
achievement and conformity, therefore in future studies these indexes may be profitably
aggregated and used as cultural level variables, particularly if several different cultures
could be studied.

The predictions Of cultural differences on the preferences of achievement and
conformity were supported by the findings. In the between cultures analyses,
achievement was higher in the United States than in Puerto Rico, and conformity higher
in Puerto Rico than in the United States. But the within culture patterns were different
between the preliminary study and the experiment’s value data. In the preliminary study
there was a cross—cultural crossover in the preference Of achievement and conformity,
where Puerto Ricans were higher in conformity than achievement and Americans higher
in achievement than conformity. However, in the experiment the pattern in the Puerto
Rican culture appeared different, when this sample showed a higher preference for
achievement than conformity. At that point in the results of the experiment, two general
arguments were presented, one was an explanation based on an achievement saliency
effect, and the other was a possible historical basis for the shift.

It was first suggested that the difference may have been due a saliency effect, or to
a higher relevance of achievement in the context in which the values were assessed in the
experiment. In a way this argument is consistent with the strong effect of situational
interdependence on attitudes that resulted from the experiment; similar in the sense that
the more proximate interdependence context had a stronger influence on the attitude

measures than did the broader cultural context. Cultural values, although abstract and

81

generally defined as consistent across situations, may also be temporarily swayed by the
more proximate context, in this case, an apparently achievement relevant context. Still,
the more important issue of the relative preference of achievement and conformity across
these two cultures is consistent with the findings of the preliminary study. A possible
follow-up study could explore the effect of proximate context on the ratings of cultural
values. For example, creating a context in which people have tO communicate with one
another in order to arrive to collective goals may make the value of conformity more
relevant and the cross-over seen in the preliminary study may re-emerge. Considering the
relative higher preference of conformity in Puerto Rico than in the United States, I would
expect that in studies in which the participants can communicate with one another that the
conformity in Puerto Ricans may become more instrumental and reported as more
important in the belief system.

The second explanation suggested in the results had its basis in history.
Politically, Puerto Rico is territory of the United States, and approximately half the
population wants the Island to become a state and the other half wishes to continue as a
territory. In other words, the average Puerto Rican is, at least politically, motivated to
stay in close association with the United States, an for some even assimilate the American
way of life. Political motivations are connected to cultural and social motivations. It then
would make historical sense that the average Puerto Rican, possibly the average
participant in this study, has an inclination to adopt an American value system, one that
corresponds with the desired way of life. While it is striking to consider such a drastic
cultural change in a similar sample of Puerto Ricans in a mere four years, a variety of

significant changes have happened in that short period Of time that may in part account

82

for a cultural shift. Important technological changes have occurred which have
transformed the way of life of these students. In 1994, it was very rare for a student to
have any access to the intemet and thus to the world, while now most students not only
have access but use it frequently. While I may not have data on this point, I do have the
personal experience of being an instructor at this university in 1994. At the time, not
even instructors had reliable facilities to access the intemet, and to get an account it took
me almost the whole year. The intemet world is yet another context to be researched.
For the present findings it may be reasoned that for a people-who are already politically
and socially motivated to be in contact with the American culture, more access to the
intemet opens the door for increased cultural diffusion, even in a short period of time.
This may very well be evidence Of cultural leveling, a process in which cultures become
similar, usually more similar to the more powerful culture. The Puerto Rican symbolic
culture may be changing to adapt to the long-standing and rapidly growing presence of
the American material culture. More importantly, Puerto Ricans may be adapting to an
increasingly global economy in which a motivation for achievement is much more
efficient than a motivation for conformity, even in their own land.

The hypotheses Of the experiment were not unlike the towers the participants had
to build in the laboratory. Each hypothesis, like a floor in a tower, was based on the
findings of a previous hypothesis. The first hypothesis, which predicted cultural
differences in the valuing of achievement and conformity, was supported. SO far, there is
at least a foundation for this tower Of knowledge. The second hypothesis combined the
predicted cross-cultural differences in values, with predictions about attitudes and

performance in two levels of outcome interdependence. The hypotheses and predicted

83

model were based on Social Adaptation Theory. The general idea was that there may be a
route Of effects between culture and performance in an interdependent task, which may be
uncovered by studying cultural values and attitudes about the task. The statistical
analysis of the model did not support the predicted route, but there were a variety of
effects that are relevant and may lead the way to new studies. The two more relevant
findings were, first, the marginal effect Of culture on the attitude of interdependence, and
second, the strong effect of condition on the attitude of interdependence.

There was at least a marginal effect of culture on the attitude of interdependence,
but this effect was not due to the valuing of achievement or conformity. These two
values were argued to be theoretically relevant to the experience Of interdependence, but
in this study there was not evidence of such a relationship. Two general arguments can
be raised by this finding. First, this lack of relationship may be yet another function of
the nature Of the task. Since the task did not involve interaction, it may be that these
cultural values, being social phenomena, are irrelevant in situations of laboratory
isolation. Second, the lack of mediation may be attributed to the value indexes
themselves. Other cultural differences may have been more relevant in this particular
situation. The indexes of achievement and conformity are very broad indicators of
abstract social preferences. It could be that more specific cultural variables, such as the
valuing of interdependence, per se, may exercise as mediators in the relationship between
culture and the attitudes.

The more reliable finding was on the effect of situational interdependence on the
attitudes about interdependence. People in a situation of high interdependence reported

more negative attitudes toward interdependence than did those in a situation of low

84

interdependence. How can this finding be applied? The situational conditions created in
the experiment differ from real world interdependent contexts in a variety of ways. In the
experiment the participants never met the presumed fellow group members, and even in a
world Of teleconferences this type of situation is very unlikely. At least through
teleconferencing long distance team members can communicate with one another. The
lack of communication or even a glimpse of a fellow group member, in a context Of high
interdependence may have played an important role in the dislike of the situation. Even
worse, participants may have suspected that there were no real other group members
(since they never saw anyone else besides the experimenter) that in the high
interdependence condition they may have been reacting to the annoyance of having to go
through a fake study. In the low interdependence condition, even if they suspected there
were no real “others” it did not make a difference, since those others were only referred to
as irrelevant. While none Of the manipulations check questions asked if they believed or
not the presence or existence of the others, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that
they didn’t believe the instructions. In the future, I would prefer to pursue the issue of
interdependence in studies in which contact and communication between the group
members was possible. In retrospect, the experimental design of isolation used to study
interdependence seems incompatible.

In conclusion, there are different levels of contextual effects on the experience of
interdependence. The more proximate the context the stronger the influence. Culture is
the broadest of social contexts, and the routes of its influence on the way that people
experience interdependence have not been uncovered in this study. But culture does

shape thoughts and feelings about interdependence, and the more we learn about the ways

85

the cultural framework works its influence, the more interculturally sensitive we can be

and the more effective we will be in a multicultural world.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A1

APPENDIX A1

ENGLISH VERSION OF CULTURAL VALUES SURVEY

VALUES SURVEY

INSTRUCTIONS
In this questionnaire you will have to ask yourself: "Which values are the most important
for ME as guiding principles in MY life, and which values are less important for ME?"
In the following pages there are two lists of values. These values are from different
cultures. After each value, within parenthesis, there is an explanation that might aid in
the understanding of the meaning Of the value.

Your task consists Of the evaluation of the importance of each value for you as guiding
principle in your life. Use the following scale:

0 = means that the value is not important, it is not relevant as a guiding principle for
you.

3 = means that the value is important.

6 = means that the value is very important.

The higher the number (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) the higher the importance Of the value as a
guiding principle in YOUR life.

-1 = use it to indicate any value that is opposite to the principles that guide you.

7 = use it to qualify values of supreme importance as guiding principles in your life;
normally there are no more than two (2) values of this type.

In the space before each value enter the number (-1, O, l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) that indicates the
importance that the value has for you. Try to differentiate as much as possible between
the values by using all the numbers in the scale. Of course you will have to use the
numbers more than once.

86

87
APPENDIX Al

LIST OF VALUES I
Before rating each value, read the values from 1 to 30 and choose the one that is most
important for you and rate its importance. Then choose the value that is most opposite to
your values and rate it as -1. If there is no such value, choose the one that is the least
important for you and rate it 0 or 1, according to its importance. Following this steps rate
each of the other values.

AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:

opposed Of
to my not very supreme
values important important important importance
-1 O 1 2 3 4 _ 5 6 7
l__EQUALITY (equal Opportunity for all)

2___INNER HARMONY (at peace with myself)

3___SOCIAL POWER (control over Others, dominance)
4__PLEASURE (gratification of desires)

5__FREEDOM (freedom of action and thought)

6__A SPIRITUAL LIFE (emphasis on spiritual not material matters)
7____SENSE OF BELONGING (feeling that others care about me)
8___SOCIAL ORDER (stability of society)

9__AN EXCITING LIFE (stimulating experiences)

10___MEANING IN LIFE (a purpose in life)

11__POLITENESS (courtesy, good manners)

12__WEALTH (material possessions, money)

l3_NATIONAL SECURITY (protection Of my nation from enemies)
14__SELF-RESPECT (belief in one's own worth)

15 RECIPROCATION OF FAVORS (avoidance of indebtedness)

88
APPENDIX Al

AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:

Opposed Of

to my not very supreme
values important important important importance
-1 O l 2 3 4 5 6 7

16__CREATIVITY (uniqueness, imagination)

17__A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict)
18____RESPECT FOR TRADITION (preservation of time-honored customs)
19__MATURE LOVE (deep emotional and spiritual intimacy)
20__SELF-DISCIPLINE (self-restraint, resistance to temptation)
21_DETACHMENT (from worldly concerns)

22____FAMILY SECURITY (safety for loved ones)
23____SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, approval by others)
24_UNITY WITH NATURE (fitting into nature)

25_A VARIED LIFE (filled with challenge, novelty, and change)
26__WISDOM (a mature understanding of life)
27_AUTHORITY (the right to lead or command)

28_TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close, supportive friends)

29___A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the arts)

30 SOCIAL JUSTICE (correcting injustice, care for the weak)

89
APPENDIX A1

LIST OF VALUES 11
Now rate the importance of each of the following values as guiding principles in your
Lfe. These values have been formulated as behavioral tendencies that may be more or
less important for you. Again, try to differentiate between the values as much as possible
by using all the numbers in the scale.

Before you begin, read the values from 31 to 56 and choose the one that is most
important for you and rate its importance. After doing this, choose the value that is most
opposite to your values, or if such value is not present, choose the one that is least
important and rate it -1, 0, or 1, according to its importance.

AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:

opposed Of

to my not very supreme
values important important important importance
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31___INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self-sufficient)
32__MODERATE (avoiding extremes Of feelings and actions)
33____LOYAL (faithful to my friends, group)
34_AMBITIOUS (hardworking, aspiring)
35_____BROAD-MINDED (tolerant of different ideas and beliefs)
36__HUMBLE (modest, self-effacing)

37_DARD\I G (seeking adventure, risk)
38__PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT (preserving nature)
39___INFLUENTIAL (having and impact on people and events)
40__HONORIN G OF PARENTS AND ELDERS (showing respect)
41___CHOOSING OWN GOALS (selecting own purposes)
42__HEALTHY (not being sick physically or mentally)

43 CAPABLE (competent, effective, efficient)

90
APPENDIX Al

AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:

opposed Of

to my not very supreme
values important important important importance
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44__ACCEPTING MY PORTION IN LIFE (submitting to life's circumstances)
45__HONEST (genuine, sincere)

46___PRESERVING MY PUBLIC IMAGE (protecting my "face")
47_OBEDIENT (dutiful, meeting obligations)
48_____INTELLIGENT (logical, thinking)

49_____HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others)
50___ENJOYING LIFE (enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc.)
51_____DEVOUT (holding tO religious faith and belief)
52___RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable)

53__CURIOUS (interested in everything, exploring)
54___FORGIVING (willing to pardon others)
55____SUCCESSFUL (achieving goals)

56 CLEAN (neat, tidy)

APPENDIX A2

APPENDIX A2

SPANISH VERSION OF CULTURAL VALUES SURVEY

CUESTIONARIO DE VALORES

INSTRUCCIONES
En este questionario tendras que preguntarte: " Qué valores son mas importantes para MI
como principios que guian MI vida y qué valores son menos importantes para mi?". En
las paginas siguientes aparecen dos listas de valores. Estos valores proceden de
diferentes culturas. En el paréntesis que se encuentra al lado de cada valor se presenta
una explicacio’n que puede ayudarte a comprender su significado.

Tu tarea consiste en evaluar cuan importante es cada valor para ti como principio gpia de
tu vida. Utiliza 1a escala siguiente:

O = significa que el valor no es importante, no es relevante como principio guia para
ti.

3 = significa que el valor es importante.

6 = significa que el valor es muy importante.

Mientras mas alto el nfimero (O, l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) mas importante el valor como principio
guia de TU vida.

-1 = utilizalo para indicar cualquier valor opuesto a los principios que te sirven de
guia.
7 = utilizalo para calificar un valor de suprema importancia como principio guia en tu

vida; normalmente no hay mas de dos valores de este tipo.

En el espacio anterior a cada valor escribe el numero (-l, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) que indique
la importancia que tiene ese valor para ti personalmente. Trata de diferenciar todo lo
posible entre los valores usando todos los nfimeros. Por supuesto tendras que usar los
nrimeros mas de una vez.

91

92
APPENDIX A2

LISTA DE VALORES I

Antes de empezar, lee los valores del 1 a1 32 y elige al que sea mas importante para ti y
evalua su importancia. A continuaciOn, elige e1 valor que sea mas opuesto a tus valores y
evalr’ralo -1. Si no existe tal valor, elige el valor menos importante y evah’ralo 0 O 1, de
acuerdo a su importancia. Luego evalua e1 resto de los valores.

COMO PRINCIPIO QUE GUIA MI VIDA, este valor es:

opuesto de

a mrs no muy suprema
valores importante importante importante importancia
-1 O l 2 3 4 5 6 7
1_IGUALDAD (igualdad de Oportunidades para todos)

2___ARMONIA INTERNA (en paz conmigo mismo)

3____PODER SOCIAL (control sobre los demas, dominio)

4_PLACER (gratificaciOn de deseos)

5__LIBERTAD (libertad de acciOn y pensamiento)

6__TRABAJ O PAGADO (ganarse la vida dignamente)

7__UNA VIDA ESPIRITUAL (énfasis en aspectos espirituales no materiales)
8____SENTIDO DE PERTENENCIA (sentimiento de que otros se preocupan por mi)
9__ORDEN SOCIAL (estabilidad de la sociedad)

10___UNA VIDA EXCITANTE (experiencias estimulantes)
11_TENER SENTIDO EN LA VIDA (una meta en la vida)
12___BUENOS MODALES (cortesia, buenas maneras)
13___RIQUEZA (posesiones materiales, dinero)

14 SEGURIDAD NACIONAL (proteccio'n de mi naciOn de enemigos)

93
APPENDIX A2

COMO PRINCIPIO QUE GUIA MI VIDA, este valor es:

opuesto de

a mis no muy suprema
valores importante importante importante importancia
- l 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15__AUTORESPETO (creer en el propio valor de uno)
16___RECIPROCIDAD DE FAVORES (evitar deber favores a los demas)
17___CREATIVIDAD (originalidad, imaginacién)

18___UN MUNDO DE PAZ (libre de guerras y conflictos)

19 RESPETO POR LA TRADICION (mantener las costumbres conservadas a lo
largo del tiempo)

20__AMOR MADURO (relaciOn profunda de intimidad emocional y espiritual)
21__AUTODISCIPLINA (auto-control, resistencia a las tentaciones)
22__DESPREOCUPACION (de preocupaciones mundanas)
23_SEGURIDAD F AMILIAR (seguridad para los seres que amo)
24__RECONOCIMIENTO SOCIAL (respeto, aprobacién de los demas)
25___UNTON CON LA NATURALEZA (integrarse con la naturaleza)
26__IDENTIDAD NACIONAL (definiciOn como pueblo)

27__UNA VIDA VARIADA (llena de retos, novedad y cambio)
28__SABI.DURIA (comprensién madura de la vida)
29_AUTORIDAD (e1 derecho de dirigir o comandar)
30__AMISTAD VERDADERA (amigos cercanos que me apoyen)
31___UN MUNDO DE BELLEZA (belleza en la naturaleza y en las artes)

32 JUSTICIA SOCIAL (corregir injusticias, preocuparse de lOS de'biles)

94
APPENDIX A2

LISTA DE VALORES II

Ahora evalua cuan importante es cada uno de los valores siguientes como principio que
guia TU vida. Estos valores estan forrnulados comO forrnas de conducta que pueden ser
mas o menos importantes para ti. Nuevamente trata de diferenciar todo lo posible entre
los valores utilizando todos los mimeros en la escala.

 

Antes de empezar, lee todos los valores del 33 al 58 y elije el que sea mas importante
para ti y evalr’ra su importancia. A continuaciOn, elige e1 valor que sea mas opuesto a tus
valores, o si no existe tal valor elige e1 menos importante y evalualo -l, 0, O 1, de acuerdo
a su importancia.

COMO PRINCIPIO QUE GUIA MI VIDA, este valor es:

opuesto de

a mis no muy suprema
valores importante importante importante importancia
- l 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33_INDEPENDIENTE (no depender de los demas, autosuficiente)
34__MODERADO (evitando los extremos en sentimientos y acciones)
35__LEAL (set fiel a mis amigos, a mi grupo)

36__AMBICIOSO (trabajador infatigable, con aspiraciones)
37__MENTE ABIERTA (tolerante de diferentes ideas y creencias)
38_HUMILDE (modesto, pasar desapercibido)

39__ATREVIDO (busca de aventuras y riesgos)

40___PROTECTOR DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE (conserva la naturaleza)
41_1NFLUYENTE (tenet impacto sobre las personas y acontecimientos)
42mHONRAR A LOS PADRES Y MAYORES (mostrandoles respeto)
43____ELEGIR MIS PROPIAS METAS (seleccionar mis propios objectivos)

44 SAN 0 (no estar enfenno fisica O mentalrnente)

45 CAPAZ (competente, efectivo, eficiente)

95
APPENDIX A2

COMO PRINCIPIO QUE GUIA M1 VIDA, este valor es:

opuesto de

a mis no muy suprema
valores importante importante importante importancia
-l O l 2 3 4 5 6 7

46__ACEPTAR LA VIDA COMO ES (someterse a las circumstancias de la vida)
47_HONESTO (genuino, sincerO)

48__CONSERVAR MI IMAGEN PUBLICA @roteger mi "imagen")
49__OBEDIENTE (cumplidor de mis deberes y Obligaciones)
50__INTELIGENTE (lOgico, pensador)

51_QUE AYUDA (trabajar por el bienestar de los demas)
52_DISFRUTAR DE LA VIDA (disfrutar de la comida, e1 sexo, e1 ocio)
53__DEVOTO (mantener creencia y fé religiosa)
54___RESPONSABLE (en el que se puede confiar, fiable)
55___CURIOSO (interesado en todo, indagador)

56____NO RENCOROSO (dispuesto a perdonar a los demas)
57__EXITOSO (consigue metas)

58 LIMPIO (ordenado, aseado)

APPENDIX Bl

APPENDIX Bl

ENGLISH VERSION OF DEBRIEFING SHEET IN THE PRELIMINARY
STUDY

CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF VALUES
Thank you very much for your COOperation in this study!

The questionnaire that you have filled is part of the replication Of a study done by
Schwartz (1992) in which the values of the individuals in 20 cultures were assessed. At
this time we are replicating this study here in the United States and in Puerto Rico. In the
original study Schwartz found that we humans, across cultures, share a set of 10
motivations: benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, power, achievement, hedonism,
stimulation, auto-direction, and universalism. According to those results, these 10
motivations are found in all cultures, but in each society some of these are stronger and
more prevalent than others. For example, in Japan the motivation to observe tradition is
very strong, while the motivation to be independent and have auto-direction is less
prevalent (e. g. Triandis, 1989).

If you are interested in learning more on this topic I Offer you some references:

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 cultures. In Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 25, 1-65.

Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human
values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

For more information please call:

Ileana P. Rodriguez-Maldonado, MA.
410 Baker Hall
(517) 353-5324

96

APPENDIX B2

APPENDIX B2

SPANISH VERSION OF DEBRIEFIN G SHEET IN THE PRELIMINARY STUDY

ESTUDIO CROS-CULTURAL DE VALORESiMuchas gracias por tu cooperaciOn en
este estudio! El cuestionario que acabas de completar es la replicaciOn de un estudio
hecho por Schwartz (1992) en el cual los valores de los individuos en 20 culturas fueron
estudiados. En esta ocasiOn estamos replicando el estudio aqui en Puerto Rico y en los
Estados Unidos. En el estudio original Schwartz encontrO que los humanos a través de
todas las culturas compartimos in conjunto de diez motivaciones: benevolencia, tradicio'n,
conforrnidad, seguridad, poder, éxito, hedonismo, estimulaciOn, auto-direcciOn, y
universalismo. De acuerdo a los resultados estas diez motivaciones se encuentran en
todas las culturas, pero en cada sociedad algunas motivaciones son mas fuertes y
prevalentes que otras. Por ejemplo, en J apOn 1a motivaciOn de mantener la tradiciOn es
muy fuerte, mientras que la motivaciOn para ser independiente y tener auto-direcciOn es
menos prevalente (e. g. Triandis, 1989).

Si estas interesado en aprender mas sobre este tema aqui te ofrezco unas referencias:

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure Of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 cultures. In Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 1-65.

Schwartz, S. H. & Bislky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human
values. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

Para mas informaciOn te puedes comunicar conmigo en la siguiente direcciOn:

Ileana P. Rodriguez Maldonado, MA.
129 Psychology Research Building, Department Of Psychology

Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48823-1117

97

APPENDIX C1

APPENDIX C l

ENGLISH VERSION OF CONSENT FORM FOR EXPERIMENT

Research Consent Form

The Tower Building Study

Read carefully the following information about this study and indicate your
understanding by signing and dating the form at the bottom.

1.

Participation in this study is voluntary. This means that the participants will freely
consent to participate in the study.

Participation in this study is anonymous and confidential.

This study will involve building towers with wooden blocks, using only one hand.
During the course of the experiment, participants will also be asked to complete
various questionnaires.

The building of the towers will be recorded on videotape for future observation by
trained coders. Only the hand of the participants and the blocks will be videotaped;
the face of the participants will not be videotaped.

Participation in this study will require about one (1) hour.

Participation in this study does not guarantee any beneficial results to any of the
participants.

All participants are free to discontinue their participation at any time without penalty.
Additional information about this research project will be provided after the

participation is completed. Participants who choose to discontinue their participation
will also receive additional information regarding the study.

 

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

 

 

Signature Date

 

98

 

APPENDIX C2

APPENDIX C2

SPANISH VERSION OF CONSENT FORM FOR EXPERIMENT

Hoja de Consentimiento a la Investigacién

Estudio de Construccién de Torres

Lee cuidadosamente la siguiente informaciOn sobre este estudio e indica que la entiendes
con tu firrna y la fecha en la parte de abajo de la hoj a.

1.

La participaciOn en este estudio es voluntaria. Esto significa que los participantes han
consentido libremente a participar en el estudio.

La participaciOn en este estudio es anOnima y confidencial.

Este estudio envuelve la construccio'n de torres con bloques de madera, usando una
mano solamente. Durante el curso del experimento, se le pedira a los participantes
que completen varios cuestionarios.

La construccién de las torres sera grabada en video para la que codificadores
entrenados observen las sesiones. Solamente la mano de los participantes y los
bloques seran grabados; la cara de los participantes no sera grabada.

La participaciOn en este estudio require aprOximadamente una (1) hora.

La participacién en este estudio no le garantiza resultados beneficiosos a ninguno de
los participantes.

Todos los participantes tienen la libertad de descontinuar e1 estudio en cualquier
momento sin ninguna penalidad.

InformaciOn adicional sobre este proyecto de investigacio’n sera provista una vez la
participaciOn haya finalizado. Los participantes que elijan descontinuar su
participacién tambien recibiran la informaciOn adicional sobre el estudio.

 

Acepto voluntariamente a participar en este estudio

 

 

F irma F echa

 

99

 

APPENDIX D1

APPENDIX D1

ENGLISH VERSION OF EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND
INSTRUCTIONS

The participants will be scheduled for 1 hour Of experiment.

I- Pre-Experiment Procedure

All Of these steps need to be taken before the participant walks into the lab.

1-

10.

Look in the log book for the next corresponding condition to be run and for the
subject (85) number.

Take the procedure-cassette for and place it in the tape player on the corresponding
side: SIDE A = cond 1, and SIDE B = cond 2. Make sure that it is rewound.

Record, on video, the condition and subject number. To do this, write the condition
and the SS number on an index card, with a thick marker. Place the card in front of
the camera and record it for about 10 seconds.

Write the subject number on the back of all the forms (lower right comer) to be used
by the participant in this session. These are the consent form, the general
questionnaire, scoring exercise, Q #1 and Q #2. You don’t need to label the
debriefing sheet.

Take the scoring exercise, fold it and put it in the small envelope labeled
“SCORING”.

Take Q #1 and put it in the larger envelope labeled “SURVEY”.

Place the “SCORING” and “SURVEY” envelopes on the shelves on the right side of
the room. Check that pencils are good to use.

Place the blocks on the table in three piles according to color. Place 33 blocks of
each color.

Place consent form on center of table with a pencil next to it.
As the experiment progresses, you will be collecting all the different forms that the
participant uses. Keep these together. At the end of the session staple all of these

forms together (there should be: consent form, general questionnaire, scoring
exercise, Q #1, and Q #2... a total of 5 forms for each participant).

100

101
APPENDIX D1

11. Greeting the Participants

"Welcome to the 'Towers Building Study'. You will be working in this room [greet them
into the experimental room].

111. Consent Form

Show the $5 the consent form and ask them to: "Please read carefully and sign this
consent form. When you are done slip it under the door".

Close the door behind you.

IV. General Questionnaire

When the Ss slips the consent form, pick it up and file it. Then go into the room with the
General Questionnaire.

The Ss are to be told that this questionnaire is unrelated to the tower building task, that
we are collecting this data for firture studies. If they ask questions you may tell them that
we are waiting for other participants and this is something to do meanwhile. But don’t
Offer too much information.

You could say: "As we wait for the other participants, we would like for you to answer
this survey. When you are done you may slip it under the door."

Close the door behind you. Wait for survey to come out, pick it up and file it.

V. Introduction of Group and Reward Interdependence Manipulations

Now, go back into the room and instruct the Ss to listen very carefirlly to the audio
recording, because they will receive all the important instructions through that recording.
Tell the participant that they will have an opportunity to ask questions, but to try and pay
close attention to the recording.

AUDIO RECORDING.“ Welcome to the tower building study. In this study you will be
building towers with the wooden blocks you see in front of you. You will be participating
along with two other participants who are in adjoining rooms. In the other two rooms of
this laboratory there are two individuals, who will go through the same procedure as
you. You will not meet or have any direct communication with these other two
participants, but the three of you will work as a group.

102
APPENDIX D1

Each one of the group members will have 99 blocks, 33 of each color, to build towers.
The amount of blocks that each group member puts into the towers will go into a group
pool of blocks, where each block will be worth one point and the more blocks that go into
the pool the more bonus points will be awarded to the group, and these in turn will be
divided among the three of you. If the pool has 99 blocks or less the group will receive
no (0) bonus points; if the pool has between 100 and 150 blocks the bonus points will be
25; if the pool has between 151 and 200, the bonus points will amount to 50; when the
pool has betiveen 201 and 250 blocks, the group will receive 75 bonus points; and finally,
if the pool has between 251 and 297 blocks, the group will be awarded 100 bonus points.
Your performance will be recorded on video, as well as that of the other two group
members. The video recording of the performance of each of the group members will be
later used to observe the amount of blocks that each one built into towers, this way
calculating the amount of blocks that will go into the group pool for each trial and the
corresponding amount of bonus points. So, after the study has been completed the score
for each participant will be calculated and these will be entered into a drawing and the
winner participant will receive his or her awarded points for the winning trial in dollars.
Therefore, we would like you to think of the points you score in each trial as dollars;
dollars that may be yours If you are the winner of the drawing.

Let me explain this again. You and two other participants form a group. Each of you
will be doing the same task of building towers with the colored blocks. The amount of
blocks that each of you is able to put into towers will be added together to calculate the
group '3 bonus. The table in front of you shows the bonus points to be awarded according
to the group total. Here is an example, person 1 accumulates 50 points for putting 50
blocks into towers, person two accumulates 80 points and person 3 accumulates 60
points. This group ’s total for this trial would be 190 points. With that number we go to
the bonus table and find out that for a group total of 1 90 points the group gets a bonus of
50 points. Now, this group bonus can be divided according to how much each person
contributed to it. In other words, we can calculate the proportion of the group bonus that
was contributed by each group member, according to the amount of points that they
contributed to the group total.

CONDITION 1:

HIGH INT ERDEPENDENCE REWARD: Your own personal score will be the average
of the points accumulated by the other two group members, and the average of their
proportion of bonus points. The same will apply to the other two group members. This
means that the performance of each person will directly aflect the score that the other
group members will receive.

Let me repeat this. To calculate your score, we will take the points accumulated by the
other two group members and compute an average. We will also take each of the other
member 's contributions to the bonus and average them. Then we will add the average of
their points and the average of their bonus points and that will be your score.

103
APPENDIX D1

Notice the high degree of interdependence present in this task. Your results will depend
highly on the other two group members, and their results will depend highly on how well
you do in the task. Their success depends highly on your performance and vice-verso.
So, in order for all group members to do well, everybody has to focus on their work. The
success of all group members depends on everyone 's effort.

CONDITION 2:

LOW IN T ERDEPENDENCE REWARD: Your personal score will be the number of
blocks that you build into towers plus your proportion of the group bonus points. The
same will apply to the other two group members.

Notice that although you will be working as part of the group, your outcome really
depends on how well you do in the task. See that the amount of group bonus is small
compared to the points you score with the blocks that you put in the towers. In most
occasions the bonus points will account for no more than 20% of your score, so it is more
important to focus on your performance than on the group '5 bonus. The bonus points
will be just a little something extra you will get from being in this group, but the bulk of
your score will come from your performance. So, in order to make a good score you
need to focus on your own work. Each participant '3 success depends mostly on their own
eflorts.

To make sure that you understand the way your points are going to be calculated, we are
going to ask you to do a brief scoring exercise.

T ake the smaller envelope labeled “SCORING ” and take the sheet out. Now, read this
carefully and do the exercise. You will have 4 minutes to work on this. When the time is
over I will ask you to stop the exercise. Then wait for more instructions. Use the pencil
on the table and start the exercise.

4 minutes...

Stop! Now, put the exercise back in the envelope and slip it under the door. The
experimenter will pick it up and will come in to explain the questions and answer any
questions you may have.

Experimenter: Go into room and stop cassette. Check results. Show the 85 the results
sheet corresponding to the condition. Make sure that they understand (at least have a
general idea) how the score for each trial is going to be calculated.

Once you have answered the 85 questions, put the cassette on play and leave the room,
closing the door after you.

104
APPENDIX D1

VI. Pre-task Assessment of Attitudes toward Group and Reward Interdependence

At this point we need you to answer some questions about the information that you have
received so far. Take the larger envelope, labeled “S UR VE Y " , open it, and take out the
questionnaire. Use the pencil on the table. You will have 2 minutes to answer these
questions. You may start now... 2 minutes... You must finish answering the questions and
at this time put the questionnaire back into the envelop and slip it under the door.

Now, let '5 proceed with the tower building task.

VII. Overview of Task

A UDIO RECORDING: In this study you will be building towers with the wooden blocks
you see on the table, but there is a specific way in which this towers are to be built. The
model tower that you see in front of you shows how each tower has to be built.

The rules are simple...

1. There are three types of blocks that you will need to build the towers. There are
BLUE, RED, and YELLOWblocks, and here you have 33 blocks of each color,
which you will use to build the towers in each trial. There will be three trials of
two and a half (2 ’/2) minutes each to build towers.

2. The instructions for each trial are the following:

a) You will only be able to use one hand to build the towers, whichever hand you
prefer. The other hand will have to remain on your lap at all times during each trial.

b) The towers must be built in a very specific pattern. The model on the table shows
demonstrates the pattern. The first floor of the tower has three vertical blocks; the
second floor has three horizontal blocks; then the third floor follows with another
three vertical blocks; the fourth floor with three horizontal blocks and finally the fifth
floor with three vertical blocks. Each floor must have one block of each color, and
the blocks must be touching each other, just like the model. A completed tower will
have five (5) floors.

c) What is most important is that you build the most towers you can, as fast as
possible.

d) Remember, each tower has to look the same as the model tower. Look closely at
the model to make sure you know what to do in the task. The goal is to build as many
towers as possible in the time provided in each trial.

105
APPENDIX D1

VIII. Practice Trial

At this moment you will be allowed 2 ’/2 minutes to practice building towers. During the
study, you will also have 2 ’/2 minutes in each trial of building towers. Try to build as
much as you can and as fast as possible. Before you start your practice you should
decide which arm you will be using to build the towers, and put the other hand on your
lap, under de table. Remember: a tower will be complete when it has five (5) floors and
that each floor must have one block of each color.

Now, get ready to start the practice trial. When I say "GO! " you may start. At the end of
the 2 ’/2 minutes I will ask you to "S T OP! ". At that time you should stop and wait for

more instructions.
G0]... 2 ’/2 minutes... STOP!

Now, let the experimenter now that you have finished the practice trial by knocking on
the door.

Experimenter: GO in and stop the cassette. Examine the towers built during the practice
trial and make sure that the participant understands the instructions correctly.

“After each trial you will have to break down the towers and separate the blocks into
three piles, one for each color {GIVE THE 85 AN IDEA OF HOW TO DO THIS}. At
the end of each trial you will have 30 seconds to reorganize your blocks and to get ready
for the next trial. Now, proceed to reorganize your blocks, during the trials you will have
30 seconds to do this.”

You may say: "Now, if you don't have anymore questions we will start the actual trials of
building towers with these blocks. Once again the audio recording will guide you, so pay
close attention".

“I will start now the video recording of the work area. Your face will not be on the
video, just your hand and the blocks and towers.”

START THE VIDEO RECORDING and the audio recording!

IX. Task

A UDIO RECORDING: Now we will start the three trials of building towers. Remember
that each trials will be 2 ’/2 minutes long and that after each trial you will have 30
seconds to reorganize the blocks into three piles according to their color. Put the hand
that you will not use on your lap and get ready to start.

106
APPENDIX D1

When I tell you "G0" you may start building towers. Remember to do them as quickly as
you can and to build as many as possible. Well, get ready: GOI... 2 ’/2 minutes... STOP!

Now we will ask you to break your towers and divide the blocks into three piles,
according to their color. You will have 30 seconds to do this.

30 seconds...
Get ready for the second trial... GO!... 2 ’/2 minutes... STOP! Now you will have 30

seconds to divide the blocks again into three piles according to their color.

30 seconds...

Get ready for the third trial... GO!... 2 ’/2 minutes... STOP! You have finished the tower
building task.

Knock on the door to let the experimenter know that you have finished.

T hank you for your participation in this study.

X. Post-Task Questionnaire

Experimenter: When the Ss knocks on the door, go into the room (with Q #2) and ask the
participant tO complete Q #2.

"Now we would like for you to answer the following questions about your experience in
this study. You may slip the questionnaire under the door when you are done".

Leave the room, closing the door after you.

XI. Experiment Credit Card and Debriefing

Ask the participant for their Experiment Credit Card and stamp it. Take the questionnaire
and give the participants their experiment credit card with the debriefing sheet. Thank
him/her and show him/her out.

If they don’t have a credit card, fill out for them a credit transfer form.

XII. For next session

0 Rewind tape on the side for the next condition.

9 Finish entry in logbook (problems?)

APPENDIX D2

APPENDIX D2

SPANISH VERSION OF EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND
INSTRUCTIONS

LOS participantes seran citados para 1 hora de experimento.

I. Procedimiento Pre-Experimental
Los siguientes pasos tienen que llevarse a cabo antes de que el participante entre en el

laboratorio.

1.

Busca en el "log book" la prOxima condiciOn a correrse y el numero de participante
correspondiente. Busca el paquete de materiales ya preparados para esa sesiOn.

Coge e1 “ejercicio de puntuacién”, dOblalO y ponlo en el sobre titulado
PUNTUACION. Coge el “cuestionario #1” y ponlo en el sobre titulado
CUESTIONARIO.

Lleva al laboratorio 103 Si guientes materiales:

a) Hoj a de Consentimiento. Ponla en el centro de la mesa con un lapiz a1 lado.

b) Sobres PUNTUACION y CUESTIONARIO. Ponlos en su lugar.

c) Tarjeta de sesiOn (condiciOn y mimero de sujeto).

(1) En el laboratorio ya deben estar los bloques en la mesa, divididos en grupos
de acuerdo a1 color, el model de la torre y la “tabla de bonos para el grupo”.

Graba en el video la condicion y el numero de suj eto poniendo la tarj eta frente a1
lente de la camara. Graba la informacién en la tarjeta por unos 10 segundos.

Pon e1 cassette-procedimiento en el lado correspondiente a la condiciOn que se va a
correr. Asegr’rrate de que esté al principio.

Una vez sepas que el participante esta presente y que la sesiOn se va a correr, apunta
en el logbook la fecha y hora. Recuerda al final de la sesiOn anotar si hubo algr'rn
problema.

Mientras e1 estudio va progresando, vas air recolectando diferentes fonnas que el
participante ha usado. Manténlas juntas y al final de la sesio’n grapa todos los papeles
juntos. Al final de la sesiOn el paquete debe contener las siguientes formas: hoja de
consentimiento (con el numero del participante escrito grande al frente), cuestionario
general, ejercicio de puntuacio'n, cuestionario #1, y cuestionario #2... un total de 5
forrnas por cada participante.

107

108
APPENDIX D2

11. Entrada de los Participantes/Hoja de Consentimiento

"Bienvenido a1 'Estudio de Construccion de Torres'. Estaras trabajando en este cuarto.
Por favor, lee éstO cuidadosamente y firma esta hoj a de consentimiento. Cuando acabes,
pasa la hoja por debajo de la puerta."

Cierra la puerta tras de ti.

III. Cuestionario General

Regresa a1 cuarto experimental con el cuestionario general y dile lo siguiente: “Completa
este cuestionario mientras esperamos por otros participantes”. NO des mas informacién
de la necesaria.

C ierra la puerta tras de ti.

Cuando el participante esté llenando es cuestionario, es un buen momento para hacer
ruidos de puertas abriendo y cerrando (para hacer parecer que pueden haber otras
personas llegando).

Este cuestionario toma de 5 a 10 minutos e1 completarlo.

IV. Introduccion a las Manipulaciones de Grupos e Interdependencia de
Recompensa

Cuando e1 cuestionario general salga por debajo de la puerta, recOgelO y entra a1
laboratorio. Dile al participante que las instrucciones para este estudio estan grabadas en
audio asi es que deben escuchar cuidadosamente. Le puedes decir que habra Oportunidad
de hacer preguntas mas adelante en el estudio.

GRABACION EN A UDIO: Bienvenido al Estudio de Construccio'n de Torres. En este
estudio estara's construyendo torres con los bloques de madera que vesfiente a ti.
Estards participandojunto a otras dos personas que se encuentran en cuartos cercanos
siguiendo el mismo procedimiento que tu. Tu no conocera's a estas personas, ni tendrcis
ninguna comumicacio'n directa con estos otros participantes, pero ustedes tres
trabajara'n como un grupo.

Cada uno de los miembros del grupo tendrd 99 bloques, 33 de cada color, para construir
las torres. La cantidad de bloques que cada miembro del grupo ponga en las torres ird a
un banco de bloques del grupo, donde cada bloque tendrd el valor de un punto y
mientras ma’s bloques vayan al banco mds puntos de bono se le dardn al grupo, y éstos a
su vez serdn divididos entre ustedes tres. Si el banco de puntos tiene 99 bloques o menos

109
APPENDIX D2

el grupo no recibira' ningunos (0) puntos de bono; si se acumulan entre 100 y 150103
puntos de bono serdn 25,: si el banco tiene entre 151 y 200, los puntos de bono sera'n 50;
cuando el banco tenga entre 201 y 250 bloques, el grupo recibird 75 puntos de bono; y
finalmente, si el banco tiene entre 251 y 297 bloques, al grupo se le dardn 100puntos de
bono. La grabacio'n en video de la actuacio’n de cada miembro del grupo serd ma's tarde
usada para observar la cantidad de bloques que cada uno puso en las torres, de esta
manera calculando la cantidad de bloques que irdn al banco de bloques del grupo para
cada oportunidad de construir las torres y la cantidad correspondiente de puntos de
bono. Despues de que el estudio se haya completado la puntuacién para cada
participante serd calculada y éstas sercin entradas en una loteria y el ganador recibird su
puntuacio'n en la oportunidad ganadora en do'lares. For 10 tanto, nos gustaria que
pensaras sobre tus puntuacio'n en coda oportunidad como sifueran do'lares; do'lares que
podrian ser tuyos si tu eres el ganador de la loteria.

CONDICION 1:

ALTA IN T ERDEPENDENCIA DE RE C 0MPENSA: Tu puntuacio’n serci elpromedio
de los puntos acumulados por los otros dos miembros del grupo, y su proporcion de
puntos de bono. Lo mismo le aplicara a los otros miembros del grupo. Esto significa
que la actuacion de cada persona afectard directamente la puntuacion que recibiran los
otros dos miembros del grupo.

Vamos a repetir esto. Para calcular tu puntiacio'n, vamos a coger los puntos acumulados
por los otros dos miembros del grupo y vamos a calcular un promedio. T ambien vamos
a coger la contribucion al bono de cada uno de los otros dos miembros y vamos a
calcular ese promedio. Luego vamos a sumar al promedio de las puntuaciones mas el
promedio de sus proporciones del bono y esa va a ser tu puntuacio'n.

F ijate en el alto nivel de interdependencia presente en esta tarea. Tu resultado va
depender altamente en los otros miembros del grupo, y los resultados de ellos van a
depender altamente en cudn bien tu haces tu tarea. El éxito de ellos depende altamente
en tu actuacio’n y vice-versa. Asi es que, para que todos los miembros del grupo salgan
bien, todos tienen que enfocarse en su trabajo. El éxito de todos los miembros del grupo
depende del esfuerzo de todos.

CONDICION 2:

BAJA IN T ERDEPENDENCIA DE RE C OMPENSA: Tu puntuacién serd el numero de
bloques que pongas en las torres mds tu proporcién de los puntos de bono. Lo mismo le
aplicard a los otros dos miembros del grupo.

A pesar de que vas a estar trabajando como parte de un grupo, tus resultados en
realidad dependen de cudn bien tu hagas la tarea. F ijate que la cantidad de bono para
el grupo el pequen'a comparada con los puntos que anotas con los bloques que tu mismo

1 10
APPENDIX D2

pones en las torres. En la mayoria de las ocasiones, los puntos de bono no son mcis del
20% de la puntuacién, asi es que es mds importante el que te enfoques en tu actuacién
que en los puntos de bono del grupo. Los puntos de bono sera'n algo extra que recibirds
por ser parte del grupo, pero la mayoria de tus puntos van a venir de tu propia
actuacio'n. For 10 tanto, para que obtengas una buena puntuacio'n debes enfocarte en tu
trabajo. El éxito de cada participante depende principalmente de su propio esfuerzo.

Para asegur‘arnos de que entiendes 1a manera en que tus puntos van a ser
calculados, te vamos a pedir que hagas un pequer’io ejercicio de puntuacién.

Coge el sobre pequeri'o titulado PUN T UA CION y saca la hoja que esta adentro. Ahora,
lee cuidadosamente el ejercicio y haslo. T endra's 4 minutos para trabajar en esto.
Cuando el tiempo se acabe te pedire que acabes el ejercicio. Luego escucha para mcis
instrucciones. Usa el ldpiz en la mesa para hacer el ejercicio.

4 minutos...

Para! Ahora, pon el ejercicio nuevamente en el sobre y pdsalo por debajo de la puerta.
El experimentador lo recogerd y vendra' a chequear las contestaciones y a contestar
cualquier pregunta que tengas hasta el momento.

Experimentador: Entra a1 laboratorio con la hoja de contestaciones correspondiente a la
condicién y para el cassette. Vas a tener aproxirnadamente 3O segundos para parar e1
cassette. Chequea las contestaciones. Si las contestaciones estan correctas continr’ra, pero
si las contestaciones estan incorrectas explica las contestaciones correctas y asegurate que
el participante entienda las instrucciones.

Una vez has contestado las preguntas de participante, pon el cassette nuevamente y sal
del laboratorio cerrando la puerta tras de ti.

V. Cuestionario Pre—Tarea de Actitudes sobre el Grupo y la Interdependencia de
Recompensa

Ahora necesitamos que contestes unas preguntas sobre la informacio'n que has recibido
hasta ahora. Coge el sobre grande titulado C UEST IONARIO, dbrelo, y saca e1
cuestionario. T endrcis 1 minuto para contestar estas preguntas. Puedes empezar
ahora... I minuto... Debes terminar de contestar estas preguntas ahora, pon el
cuestionario en el sobre y pdsalo por debajo de la puerta.

Ahora, procedamos con la tarea de construir las torres.

1 l 1
APPENDIX D2

VI. Repaso de la Tarea

GRABA CION EN A UDIO: En este estudio estards construyendo torres con los bloques
de madera que ves en la mesa, pero hay unaforma especifica en la cual estas torres
sera'n construidas. El modelo que vesfrente a ti demuestra como es que hay que
construir las torres.

Las reglas sbn simples:

1. Hay tres tipos de bloques que vas a necesitar para construir las torres. Hay bloques
AZ ULES, ROJOS, y AMARILLOS, y aqui tienes 33 bloques de cada color, 105 cuales
usards para construir torres en cada turno. Habrdn tres turnos de 2 minutos y medio

cada uno.
2. Instrucciones para cada turno:
(a) Solamente podras usar una mano para construir las torres, la mano que prefieras.

(b) Las torres deben ser construidas en un patron especifico. El model en la mesa
demustra el patron. El primer piso de la torre tienes tres bloques verticales; el segundo
piso tiene tres bloques horizontales; luego el tercer piso tiene tres bloques verticales,
seguido por otros tres bloques horizontales, y finalmente el quinto piso tiene tres bloques
verticales. Cada piso tiene que tener un bloque de cada color, y los bloques deben estar
tacdndose, al igual que en el modelo. F ijate que los bloques tienen un lado ancho y otro
mas fino; el ladofino tiene que estar hacia elfrente de la torre, hacia ti. Una torre
completa tendrti cinco (5) pisos.

(c) Lo mas importante es que construyas la mayor cantidad de torres lo mas rapido
posible.

(d) Recuerda, cada torre tiene que verse igual que la torre modelo. F ijate bien en el
model para que sepas como hacer la tarea.

VII. T urno de Practica

Ahora tendras 2 ’/2 minutos para practicar e1 construir las torres. Durante el estudio,
tambien tendras 2 ’/2 minutos en cada turno de construir torres.

Cuando se acabe el turno de 2 ’/2 minutos vas a tener 30 segundos para tumbar las torres
y separar los bloques de acuerdo al color.

1 12
APPENDIX D2

T rata de construir cuantas puedas lo mas rapido posible. Antes de empezar el turno de
practica, decide que mano vas a usar para construir las torres y pon la otra mano en tu

falda, debajo de la mesa.

Ahora preparate para tu turno de practica. Cuando te diga "EMPIEZA "puedes
comenzar. Al cabo de cuatro minutos yo te dire "PARA ". En ese momento te detienes y
esperas para mas instrucciones.

"EMPIEZA "... 2 ’/2 minutos... "PARA ". No tumbes las torres todavia. T oca en la puerta
para dejarle saber al experimentador que las acabado la turno de practica.
Experimentador: Entra al laboratorio y para el cassette. Examina las torres construidas
durante e1 turno de practica y asegurate que el participante entiende las instrucciones
correctamente. Error comun, en vez de poner e1 lado fino de los bloques hacia el frente
ponen el lado ancho. Esto se debe corregir.

Experimentador debe decirle a1 participante: "Recuerda que despues de cada oportunidad
de construir torres tendras que tumbar las torres y separar los bloques en tres grupos, uno
para cada color. Al final de cada turno tendras 30 segundos para reorganizar los bloques
y para prepararte para el proximo turno. Ahora, procede a reorganizar tus bloques en lo
que yo preparo la camara para grabar los turnos. Esta es la parte en la que vamos a
grabar tu actuacio'n. Solamente vamos a grabar tu mano y la mesa con las torres.”

Pon 1a camara a grabar y antes de salir del laboratorio pon el cassette.

VIII. Tarea

GRABA CION EN AUDIO: Ahora vamos a comenzar las tres oportunidades or turnos de
contruir las torres con los bloques. Recuerda que cada turno va a ser de 2 ’/2 minutos de
largo y que al acabarse el turno vas a tener 30 segundos para tumbar las torres y

separar los bloques de acuedo al color. Coloca la mano que no vas a utilizar en tufalda

y preparate para empezar.

Cuando te diga "EMPIEZA " puedes comenzar a construir las torres. Recuerda el
hacerlas lo mas rapido posible y construir las mas que puedas. T endras 2 ’/2 minutos en
cada turno. Bueno, preparate: EMPIEZA!... 2 ’/2 minutos... PARA!

Ahora te vamos a pedir que rompas las torres y dividas los bloques en tres grupos, de
acuerdo a su color. T endras 30 segundos para hacer esto.

30 segundos...
Preparate para el segundo turno... EMPIEZA!... 2 ’/2 minutos... PARA! Ahora tendras 30

segundos para dividir los bloques nuevamente en tres grupos de acuerdo al color.
30 segundos...

1 13
APPENDIX D2

Preparate para el tercer turno... EMPIEZA!... 2 ’/2 minutos... PARA!
T oca en la puerta para dejarle saber al experimentador que has acabado.

Gracias por tu participacién en el Estudio de C onstruccio'n de Torres.

IX. Cuestionario Post-Tarea
Experimentador: Cuando el participante toque en la puerta, ve a1 laboratorio con el
cuestionario #2 y dile al participante: “Ya estamos por acabar, ahora lo unico que nos

falta es que contestes estas preguntas sobre el estudio. Cuando las acabes pasa la hoja
por debajo de la puerta.

X. "Debriefing"

Experimentador: Toma el cuestionario y entregale la hoj a de "debriefing" a1 participante.
Dale las gracias y muestrale la salida.

XII. Para 1a préxima sesién
6 Dale “rewind” a1 cassette en el lado de la prOxima condicién.

o Entra la informaciOn necesaria en el logbook correspondiente a la sesiOn que acabas
de correr ( [,problemas?)

APPENDIX El

APPENDIX E1

ENGLISH VERSION OF EXPERIMENT’S CULTURAL VALUE SURVEY

GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions
In this questionnaire you will have to ask yourself: "Which values are the most important
for ME as guiding principles in MY life, and which values are less important for ME?"
After each value, within parenthesis, there is an explanation that might aid in the
understanding of the meaning Of the value.

Your task consists of the evaluation of the importance of each value for you as cu: iding
principle in your life. Use the following scale:

0 = means that the value is not important, it is not relevant as a guiding principle for
you.

3 = means that the value is important.

6 = means that the value is very important.

The higher the number (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) the higher the importance of the value as a
guiding principle in YOUR life.

-1 = use it to indicate any value that is Opposite to the principles that guide you.

7 = use it to qualify values of supreme importance as guiding principles in your life;
normally there are no more than two (2) values Of this type.

In the space before each value enter the number (-1, O, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) that indicates the
importance that the value has for you. Try to differentiate as much as possible between
the values by using all the numbers in the scale. Of course you will have to use the
numbers more than once.

114

115

APPENDIX E1
AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:
Opposed Of
to my not very supreme
values important important important importance
-1 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

01__CARE (being concerned about the welfare Of others)
O2_SELF-RESPECT (belief in one's own worth)
03_AMBITIOUS (hardworking, aspiring)
04____OBEDIENT (dutiful, meeting Obligations)
05___ASPIRATIONS (having dreams and goals)
06_1NDEPENDENCE (not having to rely on others, having control of your success
or failure)

O7__SOCIAL ORDER (stability of society)
08_AUTHORITY (the right to lead or command)
09______CREATIVITY (uniqueness, imagination)
10__DECISIONS (having the opportunity to make changes)
11__SUCCESSFUL (achieving goals)
12_SELF-DISCIPLINE (self-restraint, resistance to temptation)
13__DESIRE (drive, wanting success, motivated)
14__EQUITY (fairness, reward according to contribution)
15__FAMILY SECURITY (safety for loved ones)
l6___EQUALITY (all are the same, same reward for all)
17___WEALTH (material posessions, money)
18__FREEDOM (freedom of action and thought)

19 COURTESY (being nice to others, not being rude)

20 ALTERNATIVES (having choices)

116

APPENDIX E1
AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:
opposed Of
to my not very supreme
values important important important importance
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21__CAPABLE (competent, effective, efficient)

22_POLITENESS (courtesy, good manners)

23_____PURPOSEFUL (having goals)

24_INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self-sufficient)

25__EXPERTISE (having extensive knowledge on a particular area)
26_SOCIAL POWER (control over others, dominance)
27__ACCOMPLISHING (reaching goals, completing tasks)

28_SHARIN G (giving what is yours to others)

29_CONTROL (of the self, Of own actions)

30_APT (having the capacity to execute a task)

31__AUTONOMY (being free to pursue personal goals, being able to do things on
your own)

32_NATIONAL SECURITY (protection of my nation from enemies)
33__1NTERDEPENDENCE (depeding on others and others depending on you)
34_HONORING OF PARENTS AND ELDERS (showing respect)
35_SELF-RESTRAINT (in favor of others)

36__SATISFACTION (considering what one has achieved sufficient)
37______RECIPROCATION OF FAVORS (avoidance Of indebtendness)
38__SELECTION (choosing what one is to do, or not to do)

39 PRESERVING MY PUBLIC IMAGE (protecting my "face")

40 CHOOSING OWN GOALS (selecting own purposes)

117

APPENDIX El
AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN MY LIFE, this value is:
opposed Of
to my not very supreme
values important important important importance
-1 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7

41___PROF1CIENT (qualified, competent, capable)

42____CONSIDERATION (taking into account the feelings and thoughts of others)
43_OBSERVANCE (Of rules)

44__INTELLIGENT (logical, thinking)

45 DEPENDENCE (having tO rely on Others, having your success or failure in the
hands of others)

46______CLEAN (neat, tidy)

47__COMPETITION (seeking personal success over the failure Of others)
48_SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, approval by others)
49__CURIOUS (interested in everything, exploring)

50_ABILITY (being able to execute a task)

51__ADHERENCE (to rules and regulations)

52_SENSE OF BELONGING (feeling that others care about me)
53__HEALTHY (not being sick phisically or mentally)

54 COOPERATION (working with other for a common cause)

GENERAL INFORMATION:

1. Age

 

2. Sex: M F

APPENDIX E2

APPENDIX E2

SPANISH VERSION OF EXPERIMENT’S CULTURAL VALUE SURVEY

CUESTIONARIO GENERAL

Instrucciones
En este cuestionario tendras que preguntarte: "Qué valores son mas importantes para MI
como principios que guian mi vida, y qué valores son menos importantes para MI?".
Despues de cada valor, entre paréntesis, hay una explicaciOn que puede ayudarte a
comprender su significado.

Tu tarea consiste en evaluar cuan importante es cada valor para ti como principio guia de
tu vida. Utiliza la siguiente escala:

0 = significa que el valor no es importante, no es relevante como principio guia para
ti.

3 = significa que el valor es importante.

6 = significa que el valor es muy importante.

Mientras mas alto el mimero (O, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) mas importante e1 valor como principio
guia de TU vida.

-1 = utilizalo para indicar cualquier valor opuesto a los principios que te sirven de
guia.

7 = utilizalo para calificar un valor de suprema importancia como principio guia en tu
vida; norrnalmente no hay mas de dos valores de este tipo.

En el espacio anterior a cada valor escribe el nt’rmero (-1, O, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) que indique
la importancia que tiene ese valor para ti personalmente. Trata de diferenciar todo lO
posible entre los valores usando todos los n1’1meros. Por supuesto tendras que usar los
numeros mas de una vez.

118

119

APPENDIX E2
COMO PRINCIPIO QUE GUIA MI VIDA, este valor es:
opuesto de
a mis no muy suprema
valores importante importante importante importancia
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

01__PREOCUPARSE (estar preocupado sobre el bienestar de otros)
02_AUTORESPETO (creer en el propio valor de uno)
03_AMBICIOSO (trabajador infatigable, con aspiraciones)
O4_OBEDIENTE (cumplidor de mis deberes y Obligaciones)
O5_ASPIRACIONES (tener suenos y metas)

O6 INDEPENDENCIA (no tener que depender de otros, tener control sobre tu éxito
O fracaso)

07_______ORDEN SOCIAL (estabilidad en la sociedad)
08_AUTORIDAD (el derecho de dirigir O comandar)
09___CREATIVIDAD (originalidad, imaginacion)
10__DECISIONES (tener la Oportunidad de hacer cambios)
11__EXITOSO (consigue metas)

12_AUTODISCIPLINA (auto-control, resistencia alas tentaciones)
13__DESEO (impulso, deseoso de exito, motivado)
14__EQUIDAD (justicia, recompensa de acuerdo a la contribucion)
15_SEGURIDAD FAMILIAR (seguridad para los seres que amo)
l6___IGUALDAD (todos son lo mismo, la misma recompensa para todos)
l7____RIQUEZA (posesiones materiales, dinero)

18 LIBERTAD (libertad de accion y pensamiento)

120

APPENDIX E2
COMO PRINCIPIO QUE GUIA MI VIDA, este valor es:
opuesto de
a mis no muy suprema
valores importante importante importante importancia
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19_CORTESIA (set bueno con los demas, no set grocero)
20_ALTERNATIVAS (tener opciones)

21_CAPAZ (competente, efectivo, eficiente)
22____CONSIDERACION (cortesia, buenos modales)
23__PROPOSITO (tener metas)

24_INDEPENDIENTE (autosuficiente)

25_EXPERTO (tener conocimiento extenso sobre un area en particular)
26__PODER SOCLAL (control sobre los demas, dominio)
27____LOGRADO (llegar a las metas, completar tareas)
28_COMPARTIR (dar lo que es tuyo a otros)

29 CONTROL (de uno mismo, de las acciones propias)

3O APTO (tener 1a capacidad de ejecutar una tarea)
31 AUTONOMIA (ser libre para ir tras metas personales, poder hacer cosas por tu
cuenta)

32_SEGURIDAD NATIONAL (proteccion de mi nacion de enemigos)
33__1NTERDEPENDENCIA (depender de otros y que otros dependan de ti)
34_HONRAR A LOS PADRES Y MAYORES (mostrandoles respeto)
35_AUTO-CONTROL (en favor de los demas)

36 SATISFACCION (considerar que lo que mm a logrado es suficiente)

121

APPENDIX E2
COMO PRINCIPIO QUE GUIA MI VIDA, este valor es:
opuesto de
a mis nO muy suprema
valores importante importante importante importancia
-l 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

37__RECIPROCIDAD DE FAVORES (evitar deber favores a los demas)
38__SEL’ECCION (escoger lo que uno va a hacer, 0 no hacer)
39_CONSERVAR LA IMAGEN PUBLICA (proteger mi "imagen")
40_ELEGIR MIS PROPIAS METAS (seleccionar mis propios objectivos)
41_PROFICIENTE (cualificado, competente, capaz)

42 CONSIDERACION (tomar en cuenta los sentimientos y pensamientos de los
demas)

43 OBSERVACION (de reglas)
44 INTELIGENTE (logico, pensador)

45 DEPENDENC IA (tener que depender en otros, tener tu exito O fracaso en las
manos de los demas)

46__LIMPIO (ordenado, aseado)

47_COMPETENC IA (buscar e1 exito personal sobre el fracaso de los demas)
48___RECONOCIMIENTO SOCIAL (respeto, aprobacion de los demas)
49__CURIOSO (interesado en todo, indagador)

50_ABILIDAD (ser capaz de ejecutar una tarea)

51___ADHERENCIA (a reglas y regulaciones)

52_SENTIDO DE PERTENENCIA (sentimiento de que otros se preocupan por mi)

5 3 SALUDABLE (no estar enfermo fisica ni mentalmente)

54 COOPERACION (trabajar con otros para una causa comt'm)

122
APPENDIX E2

Informacién General:
Edad

Sexo: M F

 

APPENDIX F1

APPENDIX F1

ENGLISH VERSION OF PRE-TASK QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE #1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please answer the following questions using the not Very
scale to the right. For each question, CIRCLE the at much
number that better represents your Opinion. all

HOW MUCH DO YOU LIKE:
1. working in a group? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. the way in which your score will be computed? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. the way in which the score of the other group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
members will be computed?
4. depending on others for your score? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. having others depend on you for their score? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. being independent of others? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. sharing your success? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. benefiting from the success Of others? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. working by yourself (not in a group)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. the way in which the bonus points will be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
divided?
11. not being able to meet the other group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
members?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

123

 

APPENDIX F2

APPENDIX F2

SPANISH VERSION OF PRE-TASK QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CUESTIONARIO #1
Favor the contestar las siguientes preguntas usando nada mucho
la escala a la derecha. Para cada pregunta,
CIRCULE e1 numero que mejor representa su
opinion.
CUANTO TE GUSTA:

1. trabajar en grupo? l 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. 1a manera en que tu puntuacion sera calculada? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. la manera en que la puntuacion de los otros 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
miembros del grupo sera calculada?
4. depender de otros para tu puntuacion? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. el que otros dependan de ti para su puntuacion? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. ser independiente de otros? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. compartir tu exito? l 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. beneficiarte del exito de otros? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. trabajar por tu cuenta (no en un grupo)? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. la manera en que los puntos de bono seran 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
divididos?
11. e1 no poder conocer a los otros miembros del 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

p0?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124

 

APPENDIX G1

APPENDIX G1

ENGLISH VERSION OF POST-TASK QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUESTIONNAIRE #2
Please answer the following questions using the not Very
scale to the right. For each question, CIRCLE at much
the number that better represents your Opinion. all
1. How much did you like to participate in this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Study?
2. How much was your performance influenced by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the other group members?
3. How difficult was the tower building task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. How much was your performance affected 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
negatively by the other group members?
5. How much was your performance affected 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

positively by the other group members?

 

6. How much did your performance depend on the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
other group members?

 

7. How much did your reward depend on the other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
group members?

 

 

 

 

 

8. To what degree would you attribute your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

performance in this task to your effort?

9. To what degree would you attribute your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

performance in this task to factors out of your

control?

10. To what degree would you attribute your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
performance to luck?

11. To what degree would you attribute your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

performance to your ability?

12. How much did you like the time that you had 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

available to build the towers?

 

13. How much did you like the rules of the task of l 2 3 4 5 6 7
building towers?

 

14. How difficult was building the towers with one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hand?

 

15. How interesting was this task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

16. How much did you like the way in which your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
points were awarded?

 

17. To what degree was the method of scoring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
oints fair?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

126

 

1 8. How much was your score dependent on the
performance of others?

 

19. TO what degree was the score of the other group
members dependent on your performance?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G2

APPENDIX G2

SPANISH VERSION OF POST-TASK QUESTIONNAIRE

CUESTIONARIO #2

 

Por favor, conteste las siguientes preguntas
utilizando la escala a su derecha. Para cada
pregunta, C IRCULE e1 mimero que mejor
represente su OpiniOn.

nada

 

1. gCuantO te gusto participar en este estudio?

J}.

 

2. gHasta qué punto fue tu actuaciOn influenciada por
los otros miembros del grupo?

\IxroD‘O‘T-B

 

3. (,Cuan dificil era la tarea de construir las torres?

A

\l

 

4. {,Hasta qué punto fue tu actuaciOn negativamente
afectada por los otros miembros del grupo?

A

 

5. (,Hasta que punto fire tu actuaciOn afectada
positivamente por los otros miembros del grupo?

 

6. LCuanto dependia tu actuacién de la actuaciOn de
los otros miembros del grupo?

 

7. [,Cuanto dependia tu recompensa de los otros
miembros del grupo?

 

8. LHasta qué punto le atribuirias tu actuaciOn en esta
tarea a tu esfuerzo?

 

9. (,Hasta que' punto le atribuirias tu actuaciOn en esta
tarea a factores fuera de tu control?

 

10. LHasta qué punto le atribuirias tu actuaciOn en esta
tarea a la suerte?

 

1 1. LHasta qué punto le atribuirias tu actuaciOn en esta
tarea a tu abilidad?

 

12. gCuanto te gusto el tiempo que tuviste disponible
para construir las torres?

 

13. LHasta que' punto te gustaron las reglas de la tarea
de construir las torres?

 

l4. (,Cuan dificil fue construir las torres con una
mano?

 

15. éCuan interesante era la tarea?

 

l6. gCuanto te gusto 1a forrna en que tus puntos
fueron calculados?

 

l7. LHasta qué punto era justo e1 me'todo de anotar
puntos?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

127

 

 

128

 

l8. gHasta qué punto dependia tu puntuaciOn de la
actuaciOn de los otros?

 

l9. (,Hasta que punto dependian las puntuaciones de
los otros miembros del grupo en tu actuaciOn?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX H1

APPENDIX H1

ENGLISH VERSION OF DEBRIEFIN G SHEET FOR EXPERIMENT
The Tower Building Study

Thank you for your participation in this study!

The purpose Of this study was to examine the impact of cultural values on attitudes about
reward interdependence and the performance in a group task. Reward interdependence
refers to having your outcome (i.e. reward, points, money) in the task be dependent or
independent of the performance of other people in your group.

This is a cross-cultural study and is being performed here at Michigan State University
and at the University Of Puerto Rico. Research on cultural values has shown that
Americans tend to prefer individualistic values, while Puerto Ricans prefer collectivistic
values. In this experiment, Puerto Ricans are expected to have more favorable attitudes
toward working in a group and depending on others than the American participants.

In the experiment you were instructed to think of the blocks as potential dollars, which
you may actually win in a drawing. There will be a drawing, once all the data for the
study is collected in Michigan and Puerto Rico. In this drawing, each of your trials will
be entered and, if one of your trials is the winning trial, you would win one dollar for
each block that you built into towers in that particular trial. Only the two main
researchers, 1. Rodriguez and Dr. N. Kerr, will have access to this information, and if you
are the winner of the drawing we will contact you to give you your monetary prize.

For more information on this study, please contact Dr. Norbert L. Kerr, Baker Hall 433.

References:

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 25, 1-65.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

129

APPENDIX H2

APPENDIX H2

SPANISH VERSION OF DEBRIEFING SHEET FOR EXPERIMENT

El Estudio de ConstrucciOn de Torres
Gracias por tu participaciOn en este estudio!

E1 propOsito de este estudio era e1 estudiar el impacto de valores culturales sobre las
actitudes sobre la interdependencia de recompensa y la actuaciOn en una tarea de grupo.
La interdependencia de recompensa se refiere a el que tus resultados (ej. Recompensa,
puntos, dinero) in una tarea sean dependientes o independientes de la actuaciOn de otras
personas en tu grupo.

Este es un estudio cros-cultural y fue llevado a cabo en Michigan State University y aqui
en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagfiez. Investigaciones cros-culturales anteriores han
encontrado diferencias en las prioridades de valores entre los estadounidenses y los
puertorriquefros; los estadounidenses evidencian un preferencia por los valores
individualistas, mientras que los puertorriquefios prefieren los valores colectivistas. En
este estudio se espera que los participantes puertorriquefios tengan actitudes mas postivas
hacia la actividad en grupo que los participantes estadounidenses.

Durante e1 estudio se te instruyc') a que pensaras en los bloques como posibles do'lares, los
cuales puedes ganar en el sorteo. Habra un sorteo, y cada uno de tus turnos sera entrado,
y si uno de tus turnos es el turno ganador, ganaras un dolar por cada bloque que hayas
puesto en torres en ese turno en particular. Solamente los dos investigadores principales,
I. Rodriguez y el Dr. N. Kerr, tendran acceso a esta informaciOn, y si tu eres el ganador
del sorteo nos pondremos en contacto conti go para darte tu premio monetario.

Para mas informacién sobre este estudio, favor de contactar a Ileana P. Rodriguez por
correo electro’nico: irodrigu@dpg.devry.edu.

Referencias:

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 1-65.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

130

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, 1., and Morris, C. T. (1967). Society, politics and economic development: A
quantitative approach. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality Of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Canter, D. (Ed.). (1985). Facet theory: Approaches to social research. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Davidson, M. (1983). Multidimensional scaling. New York: Wiley.
DeLamater, J. (1974). A definition of "group". Small Group Behavior, 5, 30-44.
Dillon, W. R., and Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate analysis. New York: Wiley.

Fandt, P. M., Cady, S. H., and Sparks, M. R. (1993). The impact Of reward
interdependency on the synergogy model of cooperative performance: Designing and
effective environment. Small Group Research, 24, 101-115.

Georgopoulos, B. S. (1986). Organizational structure, problem solving, and
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate
space for a configuration of points. Psychometrica, 33, 469-506.

Heller, J .F ., Groff, B. D., & Solomon, S. H. (1977). Toward an understanding Of
crowding: The role of physical interaction, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35, 183-190.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

Homer, P. M. and Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-
behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 638-646.

Hsu, F. L. (1983). Rugged individualism reconsidered. Knoxville, University of
Tennessee Press.

Inkeles, A., and Smith, D. H. (1974). Becoming modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., and Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.

131

132

Jorekog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1983). LISREL VI user's guide. Chicago: National
Educational Resources.

Kahle, L. R. (Ed.). (1983). Social values and social change: Adaptation tO life in
America. New York: Praeger.

Kahle, L. R., Kulka, R. A., and Klingel, D. M. (1980). Low adolescent self—esteem leads
to multiple interpersonal problems: A test of social adaptation theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 496-502.

Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy
of Management Review, 6, 499-508.

Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145-172.

Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of actions: An
exploration in definition and classification. In T. Parsons & E. A. Shils (Eds),
Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kroeber, A. L. and Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review Of concepts and
definitions. New York: Vintage Books.

Lukes, S. (1973). Individualism. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Parsons, T., and Shils, E. A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Piaget, J. (1929). The child's conception of the world. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.

Piaget, J. (1930). The child's conception of physical causality. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International
University Press.

Piner, K. E. and Kahle, L. R. (1984). Adapting to the stigmatizing label of mental
illness: Foregone but not forgotten. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

47, 805-811.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Rosembaum, M. E., Moore, D., Cotton, J ., Gray, M., Cook, M., Hieser, R. A., & Shovar,
M. N. (1978). Group productivity and process: The effect of reward structure and
interdependence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological
Association, Chicago.

133

Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and
cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds), Research in
organizational behavior, Vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: J AI Press.

Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., and Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-
perfonning groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61-72.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in Experimental Social
PsycholOgy, 25, 1-65.

Schwartz, S. H. and Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human
values. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.

Schwartz, S. H. and Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and
structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.

Schwartz, S. H., Sagiv, L., & Antonovsky, A. (1991). The stability and social
desirability of value priorities. Israel: Hebrew University Of Jerusalem. Submitted
for publication.

Schweder, R. A. (1982). Beyond self-constructed knowledge: The study of culture and
morality. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 41-69.

Shuter, R. (1977). Cross-cultural small group research: A review, an analysis, and a
theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1, 90-104.

Slavin, R. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?
Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445.

Slocum, J ., and Sims, H. (1980). A typology for integrating technology, organization,
and job design. Human Relations, 33, 193-212.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

Triandis, H. C. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J ., Asai, M., and Lucca, N. (1988).
Individialism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.

134

Van de Ven, A. H., and Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations.
New York: Wiley.

Williams, R. M. Jr. (1968). Values. In E. Sils (Ed), International encyclopedia of the
social sciences. New York: Macmillan.

Witkin, H. A. and Berry, J. W. (1975). Psychological differentiation in cross-cultural
perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 4-87.

Yammarino,'F. J. and Markham, S. E. (1992). On the application of within and between
analysis: Are absence and affect really group-based phenomena? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 168-176.

Zax, M. & Takahashi, S. (1967). Cultural influences on response style: Comparisons of
Japanese and American college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 71, 3-
10.