There have been several pieces of research into time orientation. Chen et al 2005 is a notable one. In eastern countries, where long term orientation is prevalent, patience is valued more than in Western countries. Chen et al conducted an experimental study using 147 Singaporean “bicultural participants” (exposed extensively to Singaporean and American culture) and assumes that both can affect behaviour depending on which is more active in the mind at a particular time. In group A, Singaporean culture was activated by presenting a collage of easily recognisable photos relevant to Singaporean culture. In group B, American culture was activated in the same manner. Impatience was tested by having Ps perform an online shopping scenario in order to purchase a novel. The book could be delivered within four working days for a standard fee or next day for an additional charge. Those Ps who were primed for US culture were more likely to go for immediate delivery, suggesting they were more impatient because of the culture activation. This shows the dimension’s effect on behaviour, as American short term culture makes them pay more to receive an item quicker, whereas Singaporean long term culture are more patient and able to wait. There were however problems with the research, as it had a small sample size so was hard to generalize, and didn’t take into account individual differences due to its independent participants design.
Wang et al surveyed 5000+ university students in 45 countries and compared them on time orientation. They found that students from long term orientation cultures were more likely to postpone immediate satisfaction and wait for bigger rewards later. Although this study had a good sample size, it only has university students so it isn’t very generalizable. It was also never published so it could be unreliable. Ayoun and Moreo 2009 surveyed hotel managers in the USA and Thailand, and found that Thai managers placed stronger emphasis on long term strategic plans and a stronger reliance on long term-evaluation of strategy. This studies’ sample size wasn’t generalizable as it looked at hotel managers, only had correlational data (can’t infer cause and effect) and didn’t control the variables. It did however have good ecological validity as it was a natural experiment. Levine and Norenzayan 1999 related time orientation to everyday behaviours. They measured how fast people walked in downtown areas of major cities, the speed of a visit to the post office and the accuracy of clocks in 31 countries. They found that life pace was fastest in countries like Switzerland, Ireland and Germany, and slowest in Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil and Syria. This research showed that in short term cultures people are in a rush to get things done, whereas in long term cultures people are more relaxed about timing. This study is reliable as it was a natural study (ecological validity), and had a good sample size. However, it must be asked if they had consent as they were observing random people. Overall, all the studies examined have been reliable as they were all finding the same results using different methods.
In individualist cultures identity is defined by personal characteristics. In more collectivist cultures identity is defined more by the characteristics of the collective group to which it belongs. Members of individualist countries still have the need to belong and to be social beings. SIT was developed in individualist countries to explain behaviour in these cultures. Brewer and Chen 2007 highlight that individualist countries are less focused on group harmony or doing their duty for the traditional groups (e.g. family) that collectivist societies are based on. Individualist countries include USA, Canada, western European countries, Australia and New Zealand. Collectivist cultures include China and Japan. It is important to consider that it is not a case of individualism vs collectivism; it is more a matter of degree, with countries tending to adopt more or less extreme positions on these dimensions. Moreover, there is diversity within the same culture. There are many individuals within collectivist countries, and there are more collective views from some people in individualist countries.
Petrova et al 2007 conducted a field experiment with 3000+students at a university. Around half were native US students, the rest were Asian students. All were sent an email asking them to participate in a survey. A month later the students received a second email asking them whether they would agree to take part in an online survey. A higher proportion of Asian students agreed to the first request. However, compliance with the first request had a stronger impact on compliance with the second request among the US students. The proportion of US students who agreed to the second task having already agreed to the first was 2x higher than the Asian students. It shows that people in individualist cultures are more likely to be consistent with their personal choices and earlier commitment. This study had a good sample size and ecological validity, but it had low generalizability due to the fact it only focused on university students. Cialdini et al 1999 said that individuals from collectivist cultures may be more sensitive to information about the compliance histories of other members of their groups rather than their own individual compliance history. So, perhaps we would see more compliance if we presented participants with information that shows others belonging to their group have complied in the past.
Bond and Smith 1996 did a meta-analysis of 133 conformity studies all using the Asch paradigm. They took studies from 17 countries (decent sample size) and found more conformity in collectivist countries (Fiji, Hong Kong, Brazil) than in individualist countries (USA, UK, France). This shows that members of collectivist countries value conformity because it promotes group relationships and reduces conflicts. Therefore agreeing with others in collectivist societies is more likely to be viewed as a sing of sensitivity than of submission so somebody else’s views, which is how it may be perceived in individualist countries. Thus cultural dimensions may have an influence on behaviour as they change people’s view of the behaviour (in this case conformity). The number of studies Bond and Smith looked at for each country varied wildly and is therefore unreliable. But, this doesn’t mean that members of collectivist societies always conform to group views. Earley 1993 found that conformity levels depend on the exact nature of the group. Collectivist cultures may be more likely to conform to members of a group they are tied to. Williams and Sogon 1984 found significantly higher levels of conformity among the Japanese groups who already knew one another than among groups who did not.
As the studies have shown, cultural dimensions can effect behaviour e.g. conformity and speed of life. The studies taken all together build a reliable picture and further emphasise the differences between the cultures of the world.