Hofstede's Dimensions,
Individualism-Collectivism
By Brianna Burking
This is the global age. With every introduction a new technology source, the world has been brought closer and closer together. With this new resource, people of different cultures have been communicating and working together now more than ever. As exciting as this may be, it can be just as frustrating and tense with uncertainty. For many, the idea of relating to someone from another culture, being aware of potential cultural taboos, and practicing patience can be distressing. Furthermore, the issue of building connections with people from other cultures is only one specific dimension of cultural diversity. When working together, people from two distinct cultures are also considering issues like personal motivation, project configuration, and strategy development.
Of course, what works in one location of the world may not work elsewhere. One particularly successful technique to better understand cultural differences comes from the work of psychologist Dr. Geert Hofstede. Cultural data was collected and analyzed from over forty countries with individuals working for the same organization. With his results, Hofstede initially identified four different cultural dimensions that serve to distinguish one culture from another. A fifth dimension was later added, and this is how the model is currently seen and recognized as an international standard. The five dimensions are power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation. Each country was accurately scored using a scale of 0 to 100 for each cultural dimension. The higher the score on the Hofstede scale signifies the more that the cultural dimension is exhibited in that particular society.
Of course, what works in one location of the world may not work elsewhere. One particularly successful technique to better understand cultural differences comes from the work of psychologist Dr. Geert Hofstede. Cultural data was collected and analyzed from over forty countries with individuals working for the same organization. With his results, Hofstede initially identified four different cultural dimensions that serve to distinguish one culture from another. A fifth dimension was later added, and this is how the model is currently seen and recognized as an international standard. The five dimensions are power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation. Each country was accurately scored using a scale of 0 to 100 for each cultural dimension. The higher the score on the Hofstede scale signifies the more that the cultural dimension is exhibited in that particular society.
Collectivism in Saudi Arabia
Comparing Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, one can quickly determine that the United States and Saudi Arabia’s cultural orientations are almost polar opposites. On Hofstede’s scale, the Arab culture ranks a 38 out of 100 on the individualism scale, suggesting a highly collectivistic culture structure (Hofstede, 1984). Life in Saudi Arabia is much more relaxed than the fast-paced culture of Western society. In Saudi, people prefer to establish trust and confidence with once another before proceeding with family, work, or other matters. Saudi Arabia’s culture is particularly collectivistic when compared to an individualistic society like the US and is expressed in close, long-term commitments to “in-groups,” – like family members. In the Saudi culture, loyalty is the dominant value and oftentimes overrules other social rules.
As part of a collectivist culture, the avoidance of shame is a primary factor for motivation, as they are very conscious of personal honor and family honor. This practice of preventing shame from happening to you, your family, your in-group, etc. is an inescapable duty for any member of society, especially males. As a tradition-based culture, the harm of shaming one’s family not only affects the present group members, but also family members in the past and future. The family and clan are the most significant element for this society and a primary source of an individual’s identity. As a group member, it is challenging to detach, if not impossible, to detach oneself. It is expected in the collectivist Arab culture that people will overlook their own desires for the sake of the community or in-group. Also worth noting is that even small tasks such as meals and recreational activities are always communally shared, rather than individual undertakings.
As part of a collectivist culture, the avoidance of shame is a primary factor for motivation, as they are very conscious of personal honor and family honor. This practice of preventing shame from happening to you, your family, your in-group, etc. is an inescapable duty for any member of society, especially males. As a tradition-based culture, the harm of shaming one’s family not only affects the present group members, but also family members in the past and future. The family and clan are the most significant element for this society and a primary source of an individual’s identity. As a group member, it is challenging to detach, if not impossible, to detach oneself. It is expected in the collectivist Arab culture that people will overlook their own desires for the sake of the community or in-group. Also worth noting is that even small tasks such as meals and recreational activities are always communally shared, rather than individual undertakings.
Individualism in the United States
The United States is the highest scoring individualistic country on Hofstede’s scale, scoring 91 out of 100 (Hofstede, 1984). This represents a society in which connections between individuals are relatively loose. The cultural expectation is that everyone will and should fulfill their personal needs. The primary motivator factor for Americans is the individual-based phenomena of guilt, or the avoidance of guilt. We must note that the sense of guilt rarely translates to other members of an organization, clan, or family. The collectivist culture emphasizes personal achievements and individual rights. Although the practice of group work is growing in importance, every individual still has the right to their own opinion and is expected to contribute and reflect them.
Comparing Individualism and Collectivism
Individualism is the direct opposite of the collectivist feature of culture. Whereas a collectivist society is tightly integrated; an individualist society is loosely integrated. This means that the individualist culture, like the US, suggests that individuals look primarily after their own interests, and possibly after the interests of their immediate family. Comparatively, the collectivist assumes that individuals, through birth and possibly through later life events, belong to one or more close in-groups, from which they cannot detach themselves. These societal in-groups can be family, clan, or organizational, but they all serve to protect the overall interest of their members; in turn, expecting enduring loyalty. From birth, children in Saudi Arabia are instilled lessons of loyalty and obedience. They are taught to retrain their individuality, emphasize sharing and to maintain a harmonious group atmosphere. In an individualist society, a high quality life is equated with success, achievement, self-expression, and self-respect. However, in the collectivist society, a high quality life is defined by family and group terms.
These vast cultural distinctions do not suggest that a proper American-Saudi cross cultural engagement is impossible. Rather, these differences imply that successful communication and intercultural relationships will take great effort and commitment to continuous learning. Additionally, for Americans, this cross-cultural process may seem ineffective as the resulting responses may not equate to the energy expended.
These vast cultural distinctions do not suggest that a proper American-Saudi cross cultural engagement is impossible. Rather, these differences imply that successful communication and intercultural relationships will take great effort and commitment to continuous learning. Additionally, for Americans, this cross-cultural process may seem ineffective as the resulting responses may not equate to the energy expended.
Video Review: Individualism V. Collectivism
Out-Group & In-Group Biases
A research study by Saad Said A. Al-Zahrani and Stan A. Kaplowitz, Attributional Biases in Individualist and Collectivist Cultures, analyzes the perceived differences between Americans and Saudis, and their methods of attribution biases towards groups. After much examination, researchers discovered that the collectivist culture of Saudi Arabia showed more out-group derogating and inter-group bias than the Western culture.
A distinguishing feature by culture is the notion of the self-serving bias: attributing one’s favorable outcomes to internal cause and one’s unfavorable outcomes to external causes (Said, Zahrani, & Kaplowitz, 1993). Cultures may also differ in their patterns of inter-group attribution bias, consisting of two separate but related components. The first element of inter-group attribution bias is the in-group-serving bias, which leads to positive outcomes for internal attributions, and negative outcomes for external attributions of one’s in-group (Said, Zahrani, & Kaplowitz, 1993). The second component of inter-group attribution bias is the out-group derogating bias, producing positive outcomes for external attributions and negative outcomes for internal attributions of the out-group. This particular intercultural factor has been referred to by social psychologists as the ultimate attribution error, or the ethnocentric bias (Said, Zahrani, & Kaplowitz, 1993). It is important to understand that these attributional biases are natural, and are motivated by a universal impulse to maintain a positive view of oneself or one’s group membership.
The collectivist or interdependent construct understands behavior as influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others. The individualist or independent construct recognizes when “behavior is organized and made meaningful primarily by reference to one’s own internal repertoire of thoughts, feelings and action (Said, Zahrani, & Kaplowitz, 1993) ” Correspondingly, this construct suggests a necessary separation of the self from the in-group for personal responsibility. Due to this individualist behavior, results indicate that Americans are more apt towards internal attribution than Saudis. This suggests that Americans, and other collectivist cultures, practice the act of placing blame, as the cause of a certain event, on a personal feature or condition that could be controlled by an individual. Comparatively, Saudi Arabians showed much more out-group derogating and more inter-group bias when compared to Americans. The concepts of out-group derogation and inter-group biases can be explained in the context of a perceived threat. When members in a collectivist society, such as Saudi Arabia, perceive threats of an out-group towards their in-group, they may derogate or attack that out-group. So in-group favoritism is often accompanies by out-group derogating when the in-group feels threatened. This feature of collectivist cultures can be explained by a lack of familiarity, the (often) unnatural nature of interactions, and a general lack of focus on characteristics that make individuals unique from one another.
A distinguishing feature by culture is the notion of the self-serving bias: attributing one’s favorable outcomes to internal cause and one’s unfavorable outcomes to external causes (Said, Zahrani, & Kaplowitz, 1993). Cultures may also differ in their patterns of inter-group attribution bias, consisting of two separate but related components. The first element of inter-group attribution bias is the in-group-serving bias, which leads to positive outcomes for internal attributions, and negative outcomes for external attributions of one’s in-group (Said, Zahrani, & Kaplowitz, 1993). The second component of inter-group attribution bias is the out-group derogating bias, producing positive outcomes for external attributions and negative outcomes for internal attributions of the out-group. This particular intercultural factor has been referred to by social psychologists as the ultimate attribution error, or the ethnocentric bias (Said, Zahrani, & Kaplowitz, 1993). It is important to understand that these attributional biases are natural, and are motivated by a universal impulse to maintain a positive view of oneself or one’s group membership.
The collectivist or interdependent construct understands behavior as influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others. The individualist or independent construct recognizes when “behavior is organized and made meaningful primarily by reference to one’s own internal repertoire of thoughts, feelings and action (Said, Zahrani, & Kaplowitz, 1993) ” Correspondingly, this construct suggests a necessary separation of the self from the in-group for personal responsibility. Due to this individualist behavior, results indicate that Americans are more apt towards internal attribution than Saudis. This suggests that Americans, and other collectivist cultures, practice the act of placing blame, as the cause of a certain event, on a personal feature or condition that could be controlled by an individual. Comparatively, Saudi Arabians showed much more out-group derogating and more inter-group bias when compared to Americans. The concepts of out-group derogation and inter-group biases can be explained in the context of a perceived threat. When members in a collectivist society, such as Saudi Arabia, perceive threats of an out-group towards their in-group, they may derogate or attack that out-group. So in-group favoritism is often accompanies by out-group derogating when the in-group feels threatened. This feature of collectivist cultures can be explained by a lack of familiarity, the (often) unnatural nature of interactions, and a general lack of focus on characteristics that make individuals unique from one another.
The Business World: A Collectivist View
Organizational Trust
In today’s competitive and global markets, an organization’s ability to develop trusting relationship is an increasingly important source of competitive advantage. Firms in global markets are confronted with uncertainty and risks when an intercultural business exchange has different values, goals, and communication styles. One can easily claim that the success of a nation is directly related to their competitiveness in the global market, and that a good level of trust is necessary to be successful internationally. Along with this statement, many argue that the “societal culture of a home market influence a firm’s ability to trust and be trusted (Huff & Kelley, 2003).”
The article Levels of Organizational Trust in Individualist Versus Collectivist Societies examines these potential differences in levels of trust. Researchers Lenard Huff and Lane Kelley conduct research to determine how “two measures of organizational trust: internal trust and external trust differ between in an organizational setting between individualist and collectivist cultures. The results indicate that the United States and their high level of individualism has a greater level of organizational external trust compared to collectivist cultures. In short, this simply means that the US is more trusting of individuals and groups outside of their own organization. Researchers have also studied the ways in which collectivist cultures can, and already have, overcome their natural societal tendency to distrust outsiders in this global market. Social researchers claim “organizations from collectivist cultures may have to work to build organizational cultures that differ from societal culture (Huff & Kelley, 2003).”
The article Levels of Organizational Trust in Individualist Versus Collectivist Societies examines these potential differences in levels of trust. Researchers Lenard Huff and Lane Kelley conduct research to determine how “two measures of organizational trust: internal trust and external trust differ between in an organizational setting between individualist and collectivist cultures. The results indicate that the United States and their high level of individualism has a greater level of organizational external trust compared to collectivist cultures. In short, this simply means that the US is more trusting of individuals and groups outside of their own organization. Researchers have also studied the ways in which collectivist cultures can, and already have, overcome their natural societal tendency to distrust outsiders in this global market. Social researchers claim “organizations from collectivist cultures may have to work to build organizational cultures that differ from societal culture (Huff & Kelley, 2003).”
Organizational Ethics
Just as perceptions of trust differ culturally between Saudi and the US, researchers have determined that employees self-reported work-related ethics, their perceptions of co-workers and management, and views of morally challenging situations differ greatly on an intercultural level, as well. In the comparative analysis of Organizational Ethics in Developing Countries, researchers examine the responses of ethically challenging situations in Saudi Arabia, and other collectivist cultures. Authors clarify that an employees ethical perception and judgment is absolutely critical due to its “impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the firm, especially since unethical behavior within firms hinder human relations and can shake public confidence in the organization as a whole (Al-Khatib, Rawwas & Vitell, 2004).” It is important to note that while an employee’s ethical judgments can be guided and influenced by the overall business environment, it is the employee’s individual core values and beliefs that guide their ultimate ethical judgments. Furthermore, the ways in which employees handle ethical challenges impact the organization, customer satisfaction, profitability, etc.
According to social researchers, culture is recognized as one of the most important variables influencing ethical decision-making (Al-Khatib, Rawwas & Vitell, 2004). Correspondingly, ideals and norms differ from one culture to another, and actions considered moral in one culture may be viewed as unethical to another. Collectivist cultures like Saudi Arabia are characterized by obedient people who support conformity and personal relationships over confrontation and individuality. “They do not sever existing associations and are cautious about entering new ones because the cost of social or organizational deviant behavior is very high in these cultures,” researchers explain (Al-Khatib, Rawwas & Vitell, 2004). The social order of the collectivist family serves as a prototype for conduct in business organizations. Consequently, employees tend to emphasize group-welfare a harmonies relationships. Thus, employees in an organization may exhibit similar beliefs in their judgments of ethically challenging situations. Comparatively, studies demonstrated that ethical judgments were extremely varied between employees in individualistic societies. Many results indicated that respondents perceived their ethical standards as higher than their co-workers or peers.
Another compelling argument is the notion of opportunism between individualism and collectivism. Opportunism is defined as self-interest seeking with deviousness. Research has explored this concept, and has found that opportunism is less likely in individualistic cultures like the US where participatory decision and power sharing take place. On the other hand, employees in Saudi Arabia may more likely to be opportunistic individuals as their cultural values (passiveness and submission to authority) may limit their involvement and their ability to create an ethical framework. Authors clarify “since the essence of opportunistic behavior is the deceit-oriented violation of implicit or explicit promises about one’s appropriate r required role behavior, it is therefore reasonable to assume that individuals in highly centralized organizations where power sharing and delegations of authority are absent to experience opportunistic feelings (Al-Khatib, Rawwas & Vitell, 2004). ” Therefore, we can conclude that the opportunistic individuals of a collectivist society may be more accepting of ethically questionable practices than their less opportunistic equals.
Another study conducted by researchers Aileen Smith and Evelyn Hume considers the connection between culture and ethics, as well. The results suggest that employees of highly individualistic societies are more likely to follow personal principles, even if the results are detrimental to an organization. One reason for this behavior may be the individualistic notion of low commitment to an organization and to non-immediate relationships. On the other hand, employees of collectivist societies are more likely to downplay individual values for those that benefit their organization. In other words, the expectation for collectivism is that support of an organization overrides individual values.
According to social researchers, culture is recognized as one of the most important variables influencing ethical decision-making (Al-Khatib, Rawwas & Vitell, 2004). Correspondingly, ideals and norms differ from one culture to another, and actions considered moral in one culture may be viewed as unethical to another. Collectivist cultures like Saudi Arabia are characterized by obedient people who support conformity and personal relationships over confrontation and individuality. “They do not sever existing associations and are cautious about entering new ones because the cost of social or organizational deviant behavior is very high in these cultures,” researchers explain (Al-Khatib, Rawwas & Vitell, 2004). The social order of the collectivist family serves as a prototype for conduct in business organizations. Consequently, employees tend to emphasize group-welfare a harmonies relationships. Thus, employees in an organization may exhibit similar beliefs in their judgments of ethically challenging situations. Comparatively, studies demonstrated that ethical judgments were extremely varied between employees in individualistic societies. Many results indicated that respondents perceived their ethical standards as higher than their co-workers or peers.
Another compelling argument is the notion of opportunism between individualism and collectivism. Opportunism is defined as self-interest seeking with deviousness. Research has explored this concept, and has found that opportunism is less likely in individualistic cultures like the US where participatory decision and power sharing take place. On the other hand, employees in Saudi Arabia may more likely to be opportunistic individuals as their cultural values (passiveness and submission to authority) may limit their involvement and their ability to create an ethical framework. Authors clarify “since the essence of opportunistic behavior is the deceit-oriented violation of implicit or explicit promises about one’s appropriate r required role behavior, it is therefore reasonable to assume that individuals in highly centralized organizations where power sharing and delegations of authority are absent to experience opportunistic feelings (Al-Khatib, Rawwas & Vitell, 2004). ” Therefore, we can conclude that the opportunistic individuals of a collectivist society may be more accepting of ethically questionable practices than their less opportunistic equals.
Another study conducted by researchers Aileen Smith and Evelyn Hume considers the connection between culture and ethics, as well. The results suggest that employees of highly individualistic societies are more likely to follow personal principles, even if the results are detrimental to an organization. One reason for this behavior may be the individualistic notion of low commitment to an organization and to non-immediate relationships. On the other hand, employees of collectivist societies are more likely to downplay individual values for those that benefit their organization. In other words, the expectation for collectivism is that support of an organization overrides individual values.
Organizational Quality
Personal choices are highly affected by the cultural environment in which people are bought up. One feature of personal choice is the way in which people interpret the very meaning of life, and what kind of living they consider to be desirable. Therefore, one can expect that quality of life concepts would be culturally dependent, as well. One specific personal and cultural choice reflected as a feature to the quality of life is the quality of work. The United States presents a representation of a culture in which the quality of work life is highly associated with a very central place of work in people’s concept of life (Hofstede, 1984). As part of an individualistic society, job challenge, personal achievement, and the satisfaction of intrinsic needs are routinely stressed. According to The Cultural Relativity of the Quality of Life Concept, “the capitalist economic system prevalent in and originating from these countries is based on enlightened self-interest (Hofstede, 1984).” Thus, a high quality life is centered on individual success, personal achievement, self-actualization, and self-respect.
For individuals in the Saudi culture, life fulfillment consists of living up to the primary loyalties of parents, relatives, or clans. In this collectivist society, a high quality job is which permits an individual to fulfill obligations to their families. A high quality life is defined in family and group terms. In a collectivist culture, people seek the satisfaction a job well recognized by others, rather than a job well done by one’s own standard. Furthermore, an individual accepts the job invading their private life. It is also expected that an employer will respect and take account of family problems and duties. In a collectivist work organization, the relationship has precedence over the task since it is a society in which people think of themselves as “we,” rather than “I.” Everyone is classified as belonging to the “in-group” or “out-group.” The way an individual is treated is related to their group membership.
For individuals in the Saudi culture, life fulfillment consists of living up to the primary loyalties of parents, relatives, or clans. In this collectivist society, a high quality job is which permits an individual to fulfill obligations to their families. A high quality life is defined in family and group terms. In a collectivist culture, people seek the satisfaction a job well recognized by others, rather than a job well done by one’s own standard. Furthermore, an individual accepts the job invading their private life. It is also expected that an employer will respect and take account of family problems and duties. In a collectivist work organization, the relationship has precedence over the task since it is a society in which people think of themselves as “we,” rather than “I.” Everyone is classified as belonging to the “in-group” or “out-group.” The way an individual is treated is related to their group membership.
Video Review: Saudi Arabian Business Culture
Collectivism: Influences
In addition to analyzing the ways in which a collectivist culture functions and its many features, we must also come to understand the influencing factors that make up a collectivist culture. One may argue that a culture’s history, along with the most predominant values, would make up the impression of collectivism or individualism in any given society. When considering Saudi Arabian culture, it is unquestionable that their most principal cultural values are family and religion. Saudi Arabians share a sense of heritage based on the continuous and prestigious tradition of Islam. During a personal discussion with a Saudi Arabian college student, Sarah Bin-Rafaah, it was made clear that the Saudi society views themselves “first as Muslims, and secondly as a Saudi and an Arab (S. Bin-Rafaah, interview, November 7, 2012).” Sarah also stated that in her culture, religion and family are of utmost importance and take priority over all else.
This brings us to the other major influencing factor for the collectivism, being the extended family. In Saudi Arabia, it is expected that relatives live in close-proximity to one another, whether that is in the same neighborhood, same building, or the same town. Sarah describes that in her town, it is responsibility of the eldest son in the family “to host the extended family in his home (S. Bin-Rafaah, interview, November 7, 2012).” Thus, Sarah's cousins, aunts and grandparents do not reside in her home, but her eldest uncle's. She also explains that within an extended family in Saudi, aunts, uncles, and any other adult family members are just as responsible for dealing with the needs of a child as the child’s own parent. This sense of responsibility is expected from everyone (S. Bin-Rafaah, interview, November 7, 2012). Compared to Western ways, it is easy to see how this system could be extremely beneficial. Rather than solely looking out for oneself, and the interests of one’s immediate family, Saudi adults are expected to help whenever it’s needed – and children are given more sources for guidance and friendship.
This brings us to the other major influencing factor for the collectivism, being the extended family. In Saudi Arabia, it is expected that relatives live in close-proximity to one another, whether that is in the same neighborhood, same building, or the same town. Sarah describes that in her town, it is responsibility of the eldest son in the family “to host the extended family in his home (S. Bin-Rafaah, interview, November 7, 2012).” Thus, Sarah's cousins, aunts and grandparents do not reside in her home, but her eldest uncle's. She also explains that within an extended family in Saudi, aunts, uncles, and any other adult family members are just as responsible for dealing with the needs of a child as the child’s own parent. This sense of responsibility is expected from everyone (S. Bin-Rafaah, interview, November 7, 2012). Compared to Western ways, it is easy to see how this system could be extremely beneficial. Rather than solely looking out for oneself, and the interests of one’s immediate family, Saudi adults are expected to help whenever it’s needed – and children are given more sources for guidance and friendship.
Looking Towards the Future
As we move look towards the future, we see two conflicting views forming in Saudi Arabia regarding their stance on collectivist and individualist societies. Many Saudis believe that America is taking over globally with its national identity, mainly due to its popular culture dominance in TV and music (see Section IV). We see its Western influence on Eastern ideals such as material wealth and religious freedom. In business and other social contexts, the individualist values of self-expression and independence can be misunderstood by other cultures as rude or arrogant. Thus, oftentimes the Saudi Arabian view towards the individualistic society of the US is perceived as negative and dangerous. However, recent studies have shown that women in the workforce in collectivist cultures demonstrate an increasing trend of the need to become more individualistic. A reason for this may be the present-day, global desire to become more expressive as an individual. Rida, another Effat University student, spoke about individualism and collectivism in Saudi Arabia and its development within the culture of Saudi women. Rida explains that women are beginning to take more opportunities for education and business. Thus, according to Rida, the culture in Saudi has recently become a mixture of individualism and collectivism (R. Khalid, interview, December 3, 2012).
References
Al-Khatib, J., Rawwas, M., & Vitell, S. (2004). Organizational Ethics in Developing Countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 309-322. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from the JSTOR database.
Hofstede, G. (1984). The Cultural Relativity of the Quality of Life Concept. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 389-398. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from the JSTOR database.
Huff, L., & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of Organizational Trust in Individualistic Versus Collectivist Societies: A Seven-Nation Study . Organization Science, 14(1), 81-90. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from the JSTOR database.
Said, S., Zahrani, A., & Kaplowitz, S. A. (1993). Attributional Biases in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures: A Comparison of Americans with Saudis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(3), 223-233. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from the JSTOR database.
Smith, A., & Hume, E. (2005). Linking Culture and Ethics: A Comparison of Acountants' Ethical Belief Systems in the Individualism/Collectivism and Power Distance Contexts . Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 209-220. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from the JSTOR database.
Personal Interviews
Bin-Rafaah,S. Personal Skype interview. 7 Nov. 2012.
Khalid, R. Interview by Kristin Stevenson. Personal Skype interview. 3 Dec. 2012.
Hofstede, G. (1984). The Cultural Relativity of the Quality of Life Concept. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 389-398. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from the JSTOR database.
Huff, L., & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of Organizational Trust in Individualistic Versus Collectivist Societies: A Seven-Nation Study . Organization Science, 14(1), 81-90. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from the JSTOR database.
Said, S., Zahrani, A., & Kaplowitz, S. A. (1993). Attributional Biases in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures: A Comparison of Americans with Saudis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(3), 223-233. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from the JSTOR database.
Smith, A., & Hume, E. (2005). Linking Culture and Ethics: A Comparison of Acountants' Ethical Belief Systems in the Individualism/Collectivism and Power Distance Contexts . Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 209-220. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from the JSTOR database.
Personal Interviews
Bin-Rafaah,S. Personal Skype interview. 7 Nov. 2012.
Khalid, R. Interview by Kristin Stevenson. Personal Skype interview. 3 Dec. 2012.