MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W143834440

Cross-Cultural, Cross-Cultural Age and Cross-Cultural Generational Differences in Values between the United States and Japan

2004· article· en· W143834440 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edward F. Murphy, John D. Gordon, Thomas L. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-culturalCross-cultural studiesPsychologyValue (mathematics)Cultural diversitySocial psychologyPopulationSociologyDemographyAnthropology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Executive Summary Many studies have explored cross-cultural, cross-cultural age, and cross-cultural generational differences in values. However, few studies have explored all three constructs in one research study, and even fewer have done so using the Rokeach Value Survey and working adult populations. This study filled in those research gaps by exploring whether there were crosscultural, cross-cultural age and cross-cultural generational differences in values together as constructs in one study between 1,283 United States and 209 Japanese respondents. The hypotheses were supported for cross-cultural (within) differences for 26 of 36 values, cross-cultural age (within) differences for 30 of 36 values and cross-cultural generational (across) differences for 23 of 36 values. The researchers explained the significance of these findings and made recommendations for further research. Introduction The research literature shows that many studies have explored cross-cultural differences, cross-cultural age, or cross-cultural generational differences in values, but few studies have explored all three constructs in one research study. In addition, researchers tend to use college students as the population of convenience to represent the values of adults. Researchers must not only explore cross-cultural or national level differences, but must also go below the national differences to explore cross-cultural age and cross-cultural generational differences in value structures so they can provide more accurate and meaningful information about employee motivation and consumer target to the business community. As DeMooij (1998, p. 3) pointed out, markets are people, not products. There may be global products, but there are no global people. There may be global brands but there are no global motivations for buying those brands. In-depth analysis that goes below the national level of analysis is needed because DeMooij's (1998) research showed that many managers are still trying to motivate employees through the use of money and benefits and marketers continue to develop marketing and advertising campaigns that are focused on values at the national level instead of focusing on the regional, local and individual levels (age and generational) of analysis. Managers and marketers must also move to lower levels of analysis to explore other constructs like cross-cultural age and cross-cultural generational differences in values because of their subsequent impact on attitudes and behavior. One of the most important indicators of attitudes and behavior is value structures, since research has shown that values are the underlying structures that affect attitudes and subsequent behavior (Ajzen, 1988; DeMooij, 1998; Kahle, 1984; Murphy and Andersen, 2003; Reynolds and Olson, 2001; Rokeach, 1979). Review of the literature The researcher's review of the research literature covered over 600 studies between 1977 and 2003 that explored cross-cultural, cross-cultural age and cross-cultural generational differences. Cross-Cultural Research A small sampling of the cross-cultural research literature using the RVS shows that Rokeach (1973) explored value differences between the United States, Australia, Canada and Israel using the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS). The research results suggested that the largest cross-cultural differences were for the terminal values a world at peace and national security and instrumental values ambitious and capable. Rokeach recommended that researchers explore value differences by exploring which values were more important for each culture and by exploring the top five Terminal Values (most important goals in life) and Instrumental Values (behavioral techniques used to obtain terminal value goals) of importance as they would allow researchers to fully explore the similarities and differences between cultures. Munson and Mclntyre's (1978) cross-cultural research suggested that the terminal value social recognition and instrumental value obedient were the only values in the top five of importance for respondents from Thailand, Mexico and the United States. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Applied Management and EntrepreneurshipSame topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207