Participants: Cultural Classification

The cultural grouping for each teacher was based mainly on whether they taught in the UK (‘West’) or Hong Kong (‘East’)—that is, a geographical criterion. To corroborate the cultural difference between the two groups of teachers, I put cultural heritage

eligibility requirements in place (Soto, Perez, Kim, Lee & Minnick, 2011). Hong Kong teachers were only eligible for this study if they, their parents and their grandparents were all born in Hong Kong or Mainland China. Likewise, UK teachers were only eligible if they, their parents and their grandparents were all born in the UK.

Additionally, I compared teachers in their cultural inclination, as proposed by Hofstede (1986). For the present cultural inclination data, items were adapted from Triandis and Gelfand (1998, p. 120). Because this data was collected after the research visits were made, I have to maximise my chances of participants responding to this data request. To this end, I abbreviated the original questionnaire by selecting two out of four items for each dimension—horizontal-individualism, vertical-individualism, horizontal- collectivism and vertical-collectivism. Horizontal dimensions emphasise equality; vertical dimensions emphasise hierarchy. Horizontal individualism therefore describes people who want to be unique and different from others whereas vertical individualism

emphasises the self being higher status than others. Horizontal collectivism describes the self as being similar to others (e.g., with common goals) whereas vertical collectivism emphasises the importance of the in-group such as the family. For each dimension, I chose items with the highest loadings as published by Triandis and Gelfand (1998)—that is, with the exception of one item in VI, where I chose the item with the third highest loading, alongside the first highest loading. I deviated from selecting the highest loadings in this case in order to appeal more sensitively to the target population in mind: I believed that few teachers would consciously identify with a statement declaring that “winning is

everything”, since they would be expected to teach the opposite each day (with the growth mind-set being a more politically accepted value system than its alternative; Dweck, 2006, 2012). Consequently, both horizontal-individualism items related to self-reliance, one vertical-individualism items related to work performance and the other to staying ahead of colleagues, both horizontal-collectivism items related to colleagues’ success, and both vertical-collectivism items related to family duties (see Table 7.3). Seven-point ratings were derived (0 being ‘not important at all’; 7 being ‘most important).

Table 7.3

HVIC items selected for the present study

HVIC

Dimension Theme Item

Factor loading Thesis inclusion Horizontal Individualism Self-reliance

I'd rather depend on myself than

others. .68 Y

I rely on myself most of the time;

I rarely rely on others. .66 Y Independence I often do "my own thing." .55

My personal identity,

independent of others, is very

important to me. .40

Vertical Individualism

Work

performance

It is important that I do my job

better than others. .59 Y

Winning is everything. .56

Staying ahead Competition is the law of nature. .53 Y When another person does

better than I do, I get tense and

aroused. .45

Horizontal collectivism

Colleague success

If a co-worker gets a prize, I

would feel proud. .67 Y

The well-being of my co-workers

is important to me. .64 Y

Social time

To me, pleasure is spending

time with others. .61

I feel good when I cooperate

with others. .49

Vertical

collectivism Family duties

Parents and children must stay

together as much as possible. .61 Y It is my duty to take care of my

family, even when I have to

sacrifice what I want. .60 Y

Family members should stick together, no matter what

sacrifices are required. .52 Respect for

others

It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by

my groups. .45

Note. Factor loadings were derived from Triandis and Gelfand (1998). The notated items (marked ‘Y’) were used in the present thesis to measure participants’ cultural inclinations.

I compared Hong Kong and UK teachers on their cultural inclinations. To do this, I first generated an aggregate score for each HVIC dimension (e.g., horizontal

collectivism) by adding participants’ ratings then dividing this value by two. Since the theoretical framework of this thesis has only referred to collectivism as compared with individualism, the distinction between horizontal and vertical aspects of each, collectivism and individualism, were collapsed to maintain the focus on these two dimensions. To do this, an interaction term was then produced between the aggregate horizontal and vertical scores for each, collectivism and individualism. Teachers’ geographical setting (i.e., Hong Kong vs. UK) were set as predictors in a repeated-measures ANOVA model, with the collectivism and individualism scores as levels of the outcome variable, ‘cultural inclination’.

Geography did not significantly predict cultural inclination (p = .76), according to repeated measures ANOVA. In fact, Hong Kong teachers (M = 17.21) were non-

significantly more individualistic than UK teachers (M = 14.76); UK teachers (M = 22.47) non-significantly more collectivist than Hong Kong teachers (M = 21.13), when aggregate scores ranged from 0 to 36 (since 6 was the maximum rating for each HCIV item). These findings were surprising. However, given that cultural research has long given geography precedence over self-reported cultural inclination (e.g., Senju et al., 2013; Zhang, 2006; Zhou, Peverly & Xin, 2006) such that the present research has on balance been

exceptionally thorough on this issue—and participants’ cultural heritage was strongly supported a geography-based grouping—the present thesis also bypassed the unexpected cultural inclination results to prioritise geography for participants’ cultural classification.

7.3. Design