Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 480–497

Global Social Tolerance Index and multi-method country rankings sensitivity

Research Note

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.

Keywords

indices and rankings measurement and scale development issues social tolerance gender equality immigration and minorities religion 

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。

References

  1. Adler, N. J. 2002. Global managers: No longer men alone. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13 (5): 743–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Au, K. Y., & Cheung, M. W. L. 2004. Intra-cultural variation and job autonomy in 42 countries. Organization Studies, 25 (8): 1139–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardhan, K., & Klasen, S. 1999. UNDP’s gender-related indices: A critical review. World Development, 27 (6): 985–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Das, J., DiRienzo, C., & Tiemann, T. 2008. A global tolerance index. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 18 (3): 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Dijkstra, A.G. 2002. Revisiting UNDP’s GDI and GEM: Towards an alternative. Social Indicators Research, 57 (3): 301–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. 2005. National culture and human resource management: Assumptions and evidence. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16 (6): 971–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Hodges Persell, C., Green, A., & Gurevich, L. 2001. Civil society, economic distress, and social tolerance. Sociological Forum, 16 (2): 203–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences, 2nd edn. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ILO. 2013. Labor migration. International labour organization, http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/labour-migration/lang--en/index.htm, accessed 4 August 2013.
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knack, S., & Keefer, P. 1997. Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (4): 1251–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.
  30. Little, J. 1992. Regression with missing X’s: A review. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87 (420): 1227–1237.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2010. Tolerance, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance, accessed 20 August 2010.
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. OECD & European Commission Joint Research Centre. 2008. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pawlak, Z. 1991. Rough sets: Theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Permanyer, I. 2011. Accessing the robustness of composite indices rankings. Review of Income and Wealth, 57 (2): 306–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pigott, T. D. 2001. A review of methods for missing data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7 (4): 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Price, T. D., & Feinman, G. M. 1995. Foundations of social inequality. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. 1991. Essentials of behavior research: Methods and data analysis, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Schwartz, S. H. 1999. A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48 (1): 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.
  51. Seguino, S. 2011. Help or hindrance? Religion’s impact on gender inequality in attitudes and outcomes. World Development, 39 (8): 1308–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simpson, G. 2011. A multi-method approach for the assessment of composite indices and rankings. Doctoral Dissertation, Florida International University.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, P. B. 2004. Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communications style. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 35 (1): 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Treisman, D. 2000. The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76 (3): 399–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Venaik, S., & Midgley, D. F. 2015. Mindscapes across landscapes: Archetypes of transnational and subnational culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (9): 1051–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.Google Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wrench, J. 2011. Data on discrimination in EU countries: Statistics, research and the drive for comparability. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34 (10): 1715–1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. WVS. 2005. World Value Survey, www.worldvaluessurvey.org, accessed 18 June 2010.
  65. Yeganeh, H. 2015. Religiosity, socio-economic development and work values: A cross-national study. Journal of Management Development, 34 (5): 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zanakis, S. H., & Rickling, M. 2010. Global tolerance index and robust multi-method country rankings. CIBER Center Report June 01, Florida International University.Google Scholar
  67. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stelios H Zanakis
    • 1
  • William Newburry
    • 1
  • Vasyl Taras
    • 2
  1. 1.Florida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.University of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations