Assertiveness and performance orientation

The engagement motive most frequently found in cultures of high assertiveness and performance orientation was self-expression – 46% of the reported behaviors were motivated by this motive, followed by self-presentation – almost one in three engagement behaviors were motivated by this motive. Providing value and opinion leadership motivated 18% and 16% of the engagement behaviors respectively. The motives of keeping in touch, as well as expressing support – 13% each. Thus, the most important motives driving engagement behaviors in assertive- and performance-oriented cultures are self-expression and self-presentation.

In each case, the minimum cell frequency was at a level above 5, thus one can assume that the sampling distribution is a chi-square distribution. Table 25 shows the chi-square statistics of the motives for engagement and the cultural dimension on assertiveness and performance orientation. The sample of 536 reports was deemed large enough to perform a chi-square test, as in case of large samples, chi-square and Yates Continuity Correction bear very similar statistics (see Howell 2012). However, in Table 25, I also report Yates Continuity Correction, which compensates for the overestimation of the value of chi-square when used with a 2 x 2 table. Both samples showed a significant difference in the extent to which all the motives were reported, except for the motive for expressing support.

I hypothesized that in cultures of high assertiveness, the engagement motive of keeping in touch will be reported less frequently than in cultures low on this cultural dimension. Both samples show a significant difference in the frequency of the keeping in touch motive (Chi2 = 130.87, df = 1, p <.001). Therefore, H1 was supported. This strength of association is a borderline medium/large effect (Cohen 1988) with Phi coefficient of -.497. Based on the odds ratio, the odds of someone being motivated to engage by keeping in touch were 10.1 times higher if he/she was from a low assertive culture than high assertive culture.

The hypothesis H2 held that in the cultures of high assertiveness, the engagement motive of self-expression will be reported more frequently than in cultures low on this cultural dimensions. Both samples show a significant difference in the frequency of the self-expression motive (Chi2 = 57.57, df = 1, p

<.001). Thus, the test affirms H2. The strength of association between the culture and this motive is medium, with Phi at .328 (p<.001). Based on the odds ratio, the odds of one being motivated to engage by self-expression motives were 5.5 times higher if the person was from a high assertive culture than a low assertive culture.

No significant difference was found also between the two samples in the frequency of expressing support motive (Chi2 = 3.06, df = 1, p >.05). Therefore, I did not find support for H3.

Significant difference was found in the self-presentation motive between the two samples (Chi2 = 43.12, df = 1, p <.001). In the cultures of high assertiveness and performance orientation, the engagement motive of self-presentation was reported more frequently than in cultures low on these cultural dimensions (Phi

= .284, p <.001), supporting H4. Based on the odds ratio, the odds of being motivated to engage by self-presentation motives were 4.8 times higher if the person was from a high assertive and performance-orientated culture than low assertive/performance oriented culture.

Table 25. Cultural dimension of assertiveness and performance orientation and motives for engagement

A significant difference was found between the two samples in the frequency of providing a value motive (Chi2 = 48.53, df = 1, p <.001), with a negative medium effect (Phi = -.301, p <.001). The hypothesis H5 held that in the cultures of high performance orientation, the engagement motive of providing value will be reported more frequently than in cultures low on this cultural dimension. Thus,

the direction of the effect is opposite to that hypothesized, and H5 cannot be affirmed. Based on the odds ratio, the odds of one being motivated to engage by providing the value motive were 3.9 times higher if the person was from a low performance-oriented culture than a high performance-oriented culture.

I hypothesized that in cultures of high performance orientation, the engagement motive of opinion leadership is reported more frequently than in cultures low on this cultural dimension. Based on the chi-square test, both samples showed significant difference in the frequency of reporting the opinion leadership motive (Chi2 = 4.22, df = 1, p <.05), however, Phi at the level of .089 (p < .05) does not reach the Cohen’s (1988) criteria of .10 for a small strength of association.

Moreover, Yates Correction for Continuity of 3.371 (p > .05), which compensates for the overestimate of the chi-square value when used with a 2 x 2 table, does not show the effect to be significant. Thus, I cannot affirm H6.

5.3.4 In-group collectivism

The engagement motive most frequently found in cultures of high in-group collectivism was keeping in touch with others – 62% of the reported behaviors were motivated by this motive, followed by providing value – 48% engagement behaviors were motivated by this motive. Self-expression and opinion leadership motivated 14% and 10% of the engagement behaviors respectively. The motives of expressing support motivated 9% of the engagement behaviors, and self-presentation 7%. Thus, the most important motives driving engagement behaviors in cultures characterized by high in-group collectivism are keeping in touch and providing value to others.

In each case, the minimum cell frequency was at a level above 5. Therefore, the assumption of chi-square has been met. Table 26 shows the chi-square statistics of the motives for engagement and the cultural dimension on in-group collectivism. Both samples showed a significant different in the extent to which all the motives were reported, except for the motives of opinion leadership and expressing support.

Significant difference was found in the self-presentation motive between the two samples (Chi2 = 37.98, df = 1, p <.001). In the cultures of high in-group collectivism, the engagement motive of self-presentation was reported less frequently than in cultures low on this cultural dimensions (Phi = -.266, p <.001), supporting the hypothesis H7. Based on the odds ratio, the odds of one being motivated to engage by the self-presentation motive were 4.9 times higher if the

person was from a low in-group collectivist culture than a high in-group collectivist culture.

Table 26. Cultural dimension of in-group collectivism and motives for engagement

Motives

In-group collectivism Chi-square statistics Pearson Chi²

The hypothesis H8 held that in the cultures of high in-group collectivism, the engagement motive of self-expression will be reported less frequently than in cultures low on this cultural dimensions. Both samples show a significant difference in the frequency of self-expression motive (Chi2 = 57.57, df = 1, p

<.001), with Phi of -.307 (p< .001). Thus, the test affirms H8. Based on the odds ratio, the odds of one being motivated to engage by the self-expression motive were 5.7 times higher if the person was from a low in-group collectivist culture than a high in-group collectivist culture.

I hypothesized that in cultures of high in-group collectivism, the engagement motive of keeping in touch will be reported more frequently than in cultures low on this cultural dimensions. Both samples show a significant difference in the frequency of the keeping in touch motive (Chi2 = 114.88, df = 1, p <.001).

Therefore, H9 was supported. This effect is medium (Cohen 1988) with a Phi coefficient of .463 (p < .001). Based on the odds ratio, the odds of one being motivated to engage by the keeping in touch motive were 8.1 times higher if the

person was from a high in-group collectivist culture than a low in-group collectivist culture.

A significant difference was found between the two samples in the frequency of the providing value motive (Chi2 = 47.19, df = 1, p <.001). The hypothesis H10 held that in the cultures of high in-group collectivism, the engagement motive of providing value will be reported more frequently than in cultures low on this cultural dimension. Thus, I affirm H10. Based on the odds ratio, the odds of one being motivated to engage by the providing value motive were 3.8 times higher if the person was from a high in-group collectivist culture than a low in-group collectivist culture.

No significant difference was also found between the two samples in the frequency of expressing support motive (Chi2 = 1.23, df = 1, p >.05). Thus, I cannot affirm H11.

There was no significant difference in the frequency of reporting the opinion leadership motive in the two samples (Chi2 = 3.11, df = 1, p >.05). Therefore, I did not find support for H12.