Search results

Humans are complex social beings. To understand human behaviour, an integrated perspective is required - one which considers both what we regularly do (our personality traits) and what motivates us (our values). Personality, Values, Culture uses an evolutionary perspective to look at the similarities and differences in personality and values across modern societies. Integrating research on personality and human values into a functional framework that highlights their underlying compatibilities (driven by shared genetic and brain mechanisms), Fischer describes how personality is shaped by the complex interplay between genes and the environment, both over the course of human evolution and within the lifespan of individuals. He proposes a gene-culture coevolution model of personality and values to explain how and why people differ around the world and how genes, economics, social conditions, and climate jointly shape personality

Culture is often seen as a shared meaning system. This definition has important implications for cross cultural management research. This article outlines a multilevel research process model that identifies a number of crucial steps to be aware of, if culture is being treated as a shared construct. The model integrates recent advances on composition models in organizational research and equivalence and multilevel frameworks in cross cultural psychology research. The proposed model is discussed in relation to two principal areas of cross cultural management work: (a) the identification of cultural constructs at the country level and (b) individual-level studies aiming to unpackage cultural differences in attitudes and behaviour. Implications for management research and practice across cultures are discussed.

The current study aimed to replicate the development of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) in a sample of 399 undergraduate students. We factor analyzed the Mindful Attention and Awareness Questionnaire (MAAS), the Freiburg Mindfulness Scale, the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ), the Cognitive Affective Mindfulness Scale Revised (CAMS-R), and the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS), but also extended the analysis by including a conceptually related measure, the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS), and a conceptually unrelated measure, the Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS). Overall, we found a partial replication of the five-factor structure, with the exception of non-reacting and non-judging which formed a single factor. The PHLMS items loaded as expected with theoretically related factors, whereas the LMS items emerged as separate factor. Finally, we found a new factor that was mostly defined by negatively worded items indicating possible item wording artifacts within the FFMQ. Our conceptual validation study indicates that some facets of the FFMQ can be recovered, but item wording factors may threaten the stability of these facets. Additionally, measures such as the LMS appear to measure not only theoretically, but also empirically different constructs.

Value dimensions are used widely to make distinctions between countries and also serve to explain behaviour of individuals within countries. There is a paradox: leading researchers (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994) have been adamant that country-level value structures differ from those at individual level. A recent analysis has suggested that dimensional structures at the two levels show substantial overlap. The current multi-level study extends previous research by examining to what extent ratings of the values of others can serve as an intermediate structure to help determine the degree of isomorphism between individual and culture-level structures. The findings indicate that a single value structure across levels is most parsimonious. Implications for international business research are discussed.