10个国家对工作场所可信度的探索

Q2 Social Sciences Interpersona Pub Date : 2021-12-14 DOI:10.5964/ijpr.5639
C. T. Kwantes, A. Kartolo
{"title":"10个国家对工作场所可信度的探索","authors":"C. T. Kwantes, A. Kartolo","doi":"10.5964/ijpr.5639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the context of the workplace, and especially in today’s often fast-paced, cross-cultural and virtual work environment, a basic type of trust—“swift trust”—forms quickly based on cognitive processes and beliefs, or stereotypes, of another. Interpersonal trust is in large part based on these contextualized assessments of the extent to which another person is trustworthy. While trust across cultural boundaries has been examined, there is a lack of research investigating how trustworthiness is determined cross-culturally, especially with respect to what heuristics are used in the development of trust. The current project explored how trustworthiness is conceptualized and described for both colleagues and supervisors across 10 nations using the Stereotype Content Model. Qualitative descriptors of trustworthy supervisors and colleagues were coded based on the importance ascribed to warmth and competence, and these codes were used as the basis for cluster analyses to examine similarities and differences in descriptors of role-based trustworthiness. Both differences and similarities in the expectations of trustworthiness were found across the national samples. Some cultures emphasized both warmth and competence as equally important components to developing trustworthiness, some emphasized only warmth, while others emphasized only competence. Variations of trustworthiness stereotypes were found in all but two national samples based on role expectations for supervisors and colleagues. Data from the GLOBE project related to societal cultural practices and cultural leadership prototypes were drawn on to discuss findings.","PeriodicalId":37776,"journal":{"name":"Interpersona","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A 10 nation exploration of trustworthiness in the workplace\",\"authors\":\"C. T. Kwantes, A. Kartolo\",\"doi\":\"10.5964/ijpr.5639\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the context of the workplace, and especially in today’s often fast-paced, cross-cultural and virtual work environment, a basic type of trust—“swift trust”—forms quickly based on cognitive processes and beliefs, or stereotypes, of another. Interpersonal trust is in large part based on these contextualized assessments of the extent to which another person is trustworthy. While trust across cultural boundaries has been examined, there is a lack of research investigating how trustworthiness is determined cross-culturally, especially with respect to what heuristics are used in the development of trust. The current project explored how trustworthiness is conceptualized and described for both colleagues and supervisors across 10 nations using the Stereotype Content Model. Qualitative descriptors of trustworthy supervisors and colleagues were coded based on the importance ascribed to warmth and competence, and these codes were used as the basis for cluster analyses to examine similarities and differences in descriptors of role-based trustworthiness. Both differences and similarities in the expectations of trustworthiness were found across the national samples. Some cultures emphasized both warmth and competence as equally important components to developing trustworthiness, some emphasized only warmth, while others emphasized only competence. Variations of trustworthiness stereotypes were found in all but two national samples based on role expectations for supervisors and colleagues. Data from the GLOBE project related to societal cultural practices and cultural leadership prototypes were drawn on to discuss findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37776,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interpersona\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interpersona\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.5639\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interpersona","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.5639","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在工作场所的背景下,特别是在当今快节奏、跨文化和虚拟的工作环境中,一种基本类型的信任——“快速信任”——基于对他人的认知过程和信念或刻板印象迅速形成。人际信任在很大程度上是基于对另一个人值得信赖程度的这些情境化评估。虽然已经研究了跨文化边界的信任,但缺乏关于如何跨文化确定可信度的研究,特别是关于在信任发展中使用的启发式。目前的项目探索了如何使用刻板印象内容模型对10个国家的同事和主管进行可信度概念化和描述。根据对热情和能力的重视程度对可信赖上司和同事的定性描述符进行编码,并将这些编码作为聚类分析的基础,以检验基于角色的可信赖描述符的异同。在不同国家的样本中,人们对可信度的期望既有差异也有相似之处。一些文化强调热情和能力是发展诚信的同等重要的组成部分,一些文化只强调热情,而另一些文化只强调能力。基于对主管和同事的角色期望,除了两个国家样本外,在所有国家样本中都发现了可信度刻板印象的变化。来自GLOBE项目的有关社会文化习俗和文化领导原型的数据被用来讨论研究结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A 10 nation exploration of trustworthiness in the workplace
In the context of the workplace, and especially in today’s often fast-paced, cross-cultural and virtual work environment, a basic type of trust—“swift trust”—forms quickly based on cognitive processes and beliefs, or stereotypes, of another. Interpersonal trust is in large part based on these contextualized assessments of the extent to which another person is trustworthy. While trust across cultural boundaries has been examined, there is a lack of research investigating how trustworthiness is determined cross-culturally, especially with respect to what heuristics are used in the development of trust. The current project explored how trustworthiness is conceptualized and described for both colleagues and supervisors across 10 nations using the Stereotype Content Model. Qualitative descriptors of trustworthy supervisors and colleagues were coded based on the importance ascribed to warmth and competence, and these codes were used as the basis for cluster analyses to examine similarities and differences in descriptors of role-based trustworthiness. Both differences and similarities in the expectations of trustworthiness were found across the national samples. Some cultures emphasized both warmth and competence as equally important components to developing trustworthiness, some emphasized only warmth, while others emphasized only competence. Variations of trustworthiness stereotypes were found in all but two national samples based on role expectations for supervisors and colleagues. Data from the GLOBE project related to societal cultural practices and cultural leadership prototypes were drawn on to discuss findings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Interpersona
Interpersona Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
38 weeks
期刊介绍: 1) Interpersona aims at promoting scholarship in the field of interpersonal relationships based on different methodologies and stemming from several disciplines, including Psychology, Family Studies, Sociology, Anthropology, Communication Studies, Economics, Management Science, Biology, Health Sciences, History, and others. Interpersona aims at contributing to the collective construction of an Interpersonal Relationship Science. 2) Manuscripts examining a wide range of relationships, including close or intimate relationships and weak or temporary ties, are welcome. Some examples are indicated below: Biology - Biological foundations of human relationships: physiological and neurobiological phenomena related to interpersonal interactions. The evolutionary foundations of interpersonal relationships including comparative and animal studies of social interactions. Psychology and Family Studies: close or intimate relations including romantic relationships, family relationships and friendship. Family relationships encompass spouses, parents and children, siblings, and other relations among nuclear and extended family members.[...] 3) In addition to original empirical (qualitative or quantitative) research, theoretical or methodological contributions, integrative reviews, meta-analyses, comparative or historical studies, and critical assessments of the status of the field are welcome as submissions. 4) Interpersona is a totally free access journal and readers may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles without any charge. All papers are peer-reviewed by members of the editorial board or ad-hoc reviewers under the supervision of an editor. [...] 5) All Interpersona content is available in full text with no charge. All submitted papers are reviewed by at least two referees before being accepted for publication.
期刊最新文献
From skepticism toward celebrities to celebrity culture hate: Mediating role of perceived celebrity deception and perceived dark triad of celebrities Development and validation of the Interpersonal Emotion Regulation for Couples Scale (SIERC) in the Spanish population Understanding the nature and consequences of transgressions and forgiveness in the workplace in India The work-family conflict: Dyadic view of Brazilian couples Prevalence of psychological violence in young people in the south of Spain: Implications for prevention
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1