Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Global Social Tolerance Index and multi-method country rankings sensitivity

  • Research Note
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social tolerance refers to the extent of recognition and acceptance of differences, willingness to grant equal rights, and refraining from openly intolerant attitudes. Utilizing World Value Survey (WVS) data (56 countries, 83,000 usable respondents), we develop a Global Social Tolerance Index (GSTI) that incorporates gender, minority, immigrant, and religion tolerance dimensions. We develop this index using a multi-step data-driven procedure involving five data standardizations, seven weighting approaches, and five aggregation methods. They generate 124 replications for each country’s index and rank, yielding a median overall position and several measures of rank sensitivity/robustness to different weighting, standardization, and aggregation approaches. It builds on prior social tolerance indexes in terms of scope and dimensionality, and avoids problems associated with equal or subjective weighting. The GSTI index/rankings provide a tool for IB scholars to examine nations’ overall tolerance or tolerance regarding each dimension relative to other external criteria. Our procedure can be used to develop other indexes and rankings of nations or organizations within a country or region. In practice, any such non-participatory method should always serve as a starting point to facilitate deliberations of experts and/or decision-makers for policy recommendations.

Abstract

La tolérance sociale concerne le degré de reconnaissance et d’acceptation des différences, la volonté de garantir des droits égaux et de s’abstenir d’attitudes ouvertement intolérantes. Utilisant les données du World Value Survey (WVS) (56 pays, 83.000 répondants utilisables), nous développons un Index de la Tolérance Sociale Globale (ITSC) qui couvre les dimensions de tolérance liées au sexe, à la minorité, à l’immigrant et à la religion. Nous développons cet index en utilisant une procédure, à plusieurs étapes et pilotée par les données, qui intègre cinq standardisations de données, sept approches de pondération et cinq méthodes d’agrégation. Cette procédure génère 124 réplications pour l’index et le classement de chaque pays, donnant une position médiane globale et plusieurs mesures de la sensibilité/robustesse de rang à différentes approches de pondération, de standardisation et d’agrégation. Elle s’appuie sur des indices antérieurs de tolérance sociale en matière de périmètre et de dimensionalité, et évite les problèmes liés à une pondération uniforme ou subjective. Les index/classements ITSC fournissent un outil pour les chercheurs en MI qui examinent la tolérance globale d’une nation ou la tolérance concernant chaque dimension par rapport à d’autres critères externes. Notre procédure peut être utilisée pour développer d’autres indices ou classements des nations ou organisations au sein d’un pays ou d’une région. En pratique, toute méthode non-participative de ce type devrait toujours servir de point de départ pour faciliter les délibérations des experts et/ou décideurs pour des recommandations politiques.

Abstract

La tolerancia social se refiere al grado de reconocimiento y aceptación de las diferencias, la disposición para conceder los mismos derechos y el rechazo de actitudes abiertamente intolerantes. Utilizando los datos de la Encuesta de Valores del Mundo (WVS) (56 países, 83.000 respuestas usables), desarrollamos el Índice de Tolerancia Social Global (GSTI) que incorpora las dimensiones de género, minorías, inmigrantes y tolerancia religiosa. Desarrollamos este índice usando un procedimiento motivado por los datos de múltiples etapas teniendo en cuenta cinco estandarizaciones de datos, siete enfoques de ponderación y cinco métodos de agregación. Se generaron 124 réplicas para el índice y el rango cada de país, creando una posición global media y varias medidas de sensibilidad/robustez de rango a diferentes ponderaciones, estandarización, y enfoques de agregación. Se fundamenta en índices anteriores de tolerancia social en términos de alcance y dimensión y evita los problemas asociados con la ponderación igual o subjetiva. El índice/ranking GSTI suministra una herramienta para académicos de negocios internacionales para examinar la tolerancia general de las naciones o la tolerancia en relación a cada dimensión con respecto a otro criterio externo. Nuestro procedimiento puede ser usado para desarrollar otros índices y ránquines de naciones u organizaciones en un país o región. En la práctica, cualquier método no participativo de este tipo debería siempre servir como un punto de partida para facilitar las deliberaciones de los expertos y/o tomadores de decisiones para recomendaciones de políticas.

Abstract

Tolerância social refere-se à extensão do reconhecimento e aceitação das diferenças, da disposição de conceder direitos iguais, e da abstenção de atitudes abertamente intolerantes. Utilizando dados Pesquisa Mundial de Valor (WVS, 56 países, 83.000 respondentes utilizáveis), desenvolvemos um índice de tolerância Social Global (GSTI),a que incorpora as dimensões de gênero, de minorias, de imigrantes, e religião. Desenvolvemos este índice utilizando um procedimento orientado a dados de várias etapas envolvendo cinco padronizações de dados, sete abordagens de ponderação, e cinco métodos de agregação. Eles geram 124 repetições para indexar e classificar cada país, dando origem a uma mediana geral e várias medidas de sensibilidade e robustez da classificação para diferentes abordagens de ponderação, padronização e agregação. Baseia-se em índices de tolerância social anteriores em termos de alcance e dimensionalidade, e evita problemas associados à ponderação uniforme ou subjetiva. Os índices e classificações GSTI fornecem uma ferramenta para os estudiosos de IB analisarem a tolerância geral de nações ou a tolerância associada a cada dimensão em relação a outros critérios externos. O nosso procedimento pode ser usado para desenvolver outros índices e rankings de nações ou organizações dentro de um país ou região. Na prática, qualquer método não participativo deve sempre servir como um ponto de partida para facilitar deliberações de peritos e / ou decisores para recomendações de políticas.

Abstract

社会容忍指的是认可和接受差异, 愿意给予平等权利, 以及克制公开不宽容态度的程度。利用世界价值观调查 (WVS) 数据 (56个国家, 83000个可用的调查对象) , 我们开发了一个全球社会容忍指数 (GSTI) , 包括性别、少数民族、移民、宗教容忍维度。我们使用多步骤的数据驱动程序开发这一指数, 包括五种数据标准化, 七种权重方案, 和五种聚合方法。针对每一国家的指数和等级, 它们生成了124个回答, 产生了一个中位数总体位置和几个对不同权重、标准化和聚合方案等级灵敏度/稳健性的量值。它在范围和维度方面建立在之前的社会容忍指数之上, 并避免了有关平等或主观权重的问题。GSTI指数/排名为IB学者提供了一个研究国家总体容忍或关于每个维度对其外部衡量标准容忍的工具。我们的程序可以用来开发其它关于国家的或在一个国家或区域内组织的指数和排名。实际上, 任何此类非参与性方法应该作为起点来促进专家和/或决策者对政策推荐的审议意见。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The median-based index and rankings are also closer to the commonly used equally weighted benchmark values than the mean-based ones, and thus potentially more “politically acceptable” to policymakers.

References

  • Adler, N. J. 2002. Global managers: No longer men alone. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13 (5): 743–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Au, K. Y., & Cheung, M. W. L. 2004. Intra-cultural variation and job autonomy in 42 countries. Organization Studies, 25 (8): 1139–1362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, K., & Klasen, S. 1999. UNDP’s gender-related indices: A critical review. World Development, 27 (6): 985–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Ghauri, P. N. 2004. Globalization, economic geography and the strategy of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (2): 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullough, A., Kroeck, K. G., Newburry, W., Kundu, S., & Lowe, K. B. 2012. Women’s political leadership participation around the world: An institutional analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 23 (4): 398–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caprar, D. V., Devinney, T. M., Kirkman, B. L., & Caligiuri, P. 2015. Conceptualizing and measuring culture in international business and management: From challenges to potential solutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (9): 1011–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cukur, C. S., de Guzman, M. R. T., & Carlo, G. 2014. Religiosity, values, and horizontal and vertical individualism-collectivism: A study of Turkey, the United States, and the Philippines. Journal of Social Psychology, 144 (4): 613–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, J., DiRienzo, C., & Tiemann, T. 2008. A global tolerance index. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 18 (3): 192–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DelCampo, R. G., Jacobson, K. J. L., Van Buren, H. J. III., & Blancero, D. M. 2011. Comparing immigrant and US born Hispanic business professionals. Cross Cultural Management, 18 (3): 327–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, A., Laird, N., & Rubin, D. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 39 (1): 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, A.G. 2002. Revisiting UNDP’s GDI and GEM: Towards an alternative. Social Indicators Research, 57 (3): 301–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, S. L., Diez-Pinol, M., Fernandez-Alles, M., Martin-Prius, A., & Martinez-Fierro, S. 2004. Exploratory study of within-country differences in work and life values: The case of Spanish business students. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4 (2): 157–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekici, T., & Yucel, D. 2015. What determines religious and racial prejudice in Europe? The effects of religiosity and trust. Social Indicators Research, 122 (1): 105–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D. 2005. Perceptual biases and misinterpretation of artifacts. In A. Rafaeli, & M. Pratt (Eds), Artifacts and organizations: Beyond mere symbolism: 61–81. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foner, N., & Alba, R. 2008. Immigrant religion in the US and Western Europe: Bridge or barrier to inclusion? International Migration Review, 42 (2): 360–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. 2005. National culture and human resource management: Assumptions and evidence. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16 (6): 971–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. 2004. The development and validation of the GLOBE culture and leadership scales. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges Persell, C., Green, A., & Gurevich, L. 2001. Civil society, economic distress, and social tolerance. Sociological Forum, 16 (2): 203–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences, 2nd edn. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds) 2004. Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ILO. 2013. Labor migration. International labour organization, http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/labour-migration/lang--en/index.htm, accessed 4 August 2013.

  • Jäckle, S., & Wenzelburger, G. 2015. Religion, religiosity, and the attitudes toward homosexuality – A multilevel analysis of 79 countries. Journal of Homosexuality, 62 (2): 207–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S., & Keefer, P. 1997. Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (4): 1251–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenartowicz, T., & Roth, K. 2001. Does subculture within a country matter? A cross-cultural study of motivational domains and business performance in Brazil. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (2): 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. 2004. Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multicultural perspective. In M. P. Zanna (Ed), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 36. 119–197. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., & Morris, M.W. 2015. Values, schemas, and norms in the culture-behavior nexus: A situated dynamics framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (9): 1028–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds) 2002. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications, http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf, accessed 8 January 2016.

  • Little, J. 1992. Regression with missing X’s: A review. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87 (420): 1227–1237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marin, G., Gamba, R. J., & Marin, B. V. 1992. Extreme response style and acquiescence among Hispanics. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 23 (4): 498–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2010. Tolerance, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance, accessed 20 August 2010.

  • Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. 2012. Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence from the World Values Survey. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 43 (1): 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, T. 2009. Religiosity and attitudes towards the involvement of religious leaders in politics: A multilevel-analysis of 55 societies. World Values Research, 2 (1): 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muralidhar, K., & Zanakis, S. 1992. A simple minimum-bias percentile estimator for the location parameter of the gamma, Weibull & lognormal distributions. Decision Sciences, 23 (4): 862–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newburry, W. 2012. Waving the flag: The influence of country of origin on corporate reputation. In M. Barnett, & T. Pollock (Eds), Oxford handbook of corporate reputation: 240–259. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newburry, W., Belkin, L. Y., & Ansari, P. 2008. Perceived career opportunities from globalization: Globalization capabilities and attitudes towards women in Iran and the US. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5): 814–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newburry, W., Gardberg, N. A., & Sanchez, J. I. 2014. Employer attractiveness in Latin America: The association among foreignness, internationalization and talent recruitment. Journal of International Management, 20 (3): 327–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD & European Commission Joint Research Centre. 2008. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD.

  • Parboteeah, K. P., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. B. 2008. Managers’ gender role attitudes: A country institutional profile approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5): 795–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlak, Z. 1991. Rough sets: Theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Permanyer, I. 2011. Accessing the robustness of composite indices rankings. Review of Income and Wealth, 57 (2): 306–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigott, T. D. 2001. A review of methods for missing data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7 (4): 353–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, T. D., & Feinman, G. M. 1995. Foundations of social inequality. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. 1991. Essentials of behavior research: Methods and data analysis, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. 1995. Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (3): 437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Cairns, E., & Hughes, J. 2009. Antecedents and consequences of social identity complexity: Intergroup contact, distinctiveness threat, and outgroup attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35 (8): 1085–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods and applications: 85–119. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. 1999. A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48 (1): 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. 2008. Cultural value orientations: Nature and implications of national differences. Moscow: Publishing House of SU HSE, http://blogs.helsinki.fi/valuesandmorality/files/2009/09/Schwartz-Monograph-Cultural-Value-Orientations.pdf, accessed 8 January 2016.

  • Seguino, S. 2011. Help or hindrance? Religion’s impact on gender inequality in attitudes and outcomes. World Development, 39 (8): 1308–1321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenkar, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (3): 519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. 2011. A multi-method approach for the assessment of composite indices and rankings. Doctoral Dissertation, Florida International University.

  • Smith, P. B. 2004. Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communications style. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 35 (1): 50–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steel, P., & Taras, V. 2010. Culture as a consequence: A multilevel multivariate meta-analysis of the effects of individual and country characteristics on work-related cultural values. Journal of International Management, 16 (3): 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. L., Hosoda, M., Lukaszewski, K. M., & Phillips, T. N. 2008. Methodological problems associated with research on unfair discrimination against racial minorities. Human Resource Management Review, 18 (4): 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. C., Liao, Y., Aycan, Z., Cerdin, J. -L., Pekerti, A. A., Ravlin, E. C., Stahl, G. K., Lazarova, M. B., Fock, H., Arli, D., Moeller, M., Okimoto, T. G., & van de Vijver, F. 2015. Cultural intelligence: A theory-based, short form measure. Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (9): 1099–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D. A., & Russel, C. J. 2005. The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (3): 270–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, D. 2000. The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76 (3): 399–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venaik, S., & Midgley, D. F. 2015. Mindscapes across landscapes: Archetypes of transnational and subnational culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (9): 1051–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WAIB. 2015. Creating and publishing high-quality research on women and gender. Panel sponsored by the Women of AIB (WAIB), Academy of International Business Annual Meeting, Bangalore, June.

  • Weldon, S. 2006. The institutional context of tolerance for ethnic minorities: A comparative, multilevel analysis of Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 50 (2): 331–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrench, J. 2011. Data on discrimination in EU countries: Statistics, research and the drive for comparability. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34 (10): 1715–1730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WVS. 2005. World Value Survey, www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 18 June 2010.

  • Yeganeh, H. 2015. Religiosity, socio-economic development and work values: A cross-national study. Journal of Management Development, 34 (5): 585–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanakis, S. H., & Rickling, M. 2010. Global tolerance index and robust multi-method country rankings. CIBER Center Report June 01, Florida International University.

  • Zanakis, S. H., Antony, S., Nguyen, V., & Simpson, G. 2006. Comparison of consensus ranking methods with an application to airlines service quality, MCDM Multi Criteria Decision Making 18th International Society Conference, Greece.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable suggestions and insightful extensive comments, provided by the Editor and the anonymous three reviewers, which led to substantial changes and improvements in this paper. Any errors remaining are the responsibility of the authors. This work was partially supported by a research grant from the Florida International University Center for International Business Education and Research. The first author gratefully acknowledges the valuable assistance provided by his doctoral students, Gladys Simpson in the implementation of the methods described in this paper, and Maria Rickling and Barri Litt for the initial data and preliminary literature preparation. We also benefited from discussions on MVA with Dr. David Matheson, senior statistician of the IBM SPSS support team.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

    Stelios H Zanakis & William Newburry

  2. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA

    Vasyl Taras

Authors
  1. Stelios H Zanakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William Newburry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vasyl Taras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Newburry.

Additional information

Accepted by David C. Thomas, Area Editor, 21 December 2015. This paper has been with the authors for four revisions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zanakis, S., Newburry, W. & Taras, V. Global Social Tolerance Index and multi-method country rankings sensitivity. J Int Bus Stud 47, 480–497 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.5

Keywords

Search

Navigation