首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Business and Management >Hofstede Revisited: Is Making the Ecological Fallacy when Using Hofstede’s Instrument on Individual Behavior Really Unavoidable?
【24h】

Hofstede Revisited: Is Making the Ecological Fallacy when Using Hofstede’s Instrument on Individual Behavior Really Unavoidable?

机译:霍夫斯泰德再访:使用霍夫斯泰德的个人行为工具真的无法避免造成生态谬误吗?

获取原文
       

摘要

This paper suggests that avoiding the ecological fallacy is - under certain circumstances - possible. One problem in (cross-cultural) research is that there are often two levels of theorizing (individual and country) that needs to be taken into account when data are being analyzed and conclusions are drawn. Typically, as is the case with Hofstede's (1980) well-known research, cultural values are measured on country level. Consequently, researchers who make causal inferences from such group data to individual behaviors are making the ecological fallacy, i.e they (most often) wrongly assume that relationships observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals. If, however, a method could be found that could help determining how individuals behave from the study of aggregated data, the usefulness of Hofstede's research (and research on aggregated data in general) from a manager's point of view would definitely increase. In this paper the problem of the ecological fallacy, as well as different methods of avoiding it is discussed, and a particular solution of the problem is suggested.
机译:本文建议,在某些情况下,避免生态谬误是可能的。 (跨文化)研究中的一个问题是,在分析数据和得出结论时,通常需要考虑两个层次的理论化(个人和国家)。通常,就像霍夫斯泰德(1980)的著名研究一样,文化价值是在国家层面上衡量的。因此,从此类群体数据对个人行为进行因果推断的研究人员正在造成生态谬误,即他们(最经常)错误地认为,针对群体观察到的关系必定对个体有效。但是,如果能够找到一种方法来帮助从汇总数据的研究中确定个人的行为,那么从管理者的角度来看,霍夫斯泰德的研究(以及总体上对汇总数据的研究)的有用性肯定会增加。本文讨论了生态谬误问题,以及避免这种谬论的不同方法,并提出了解决该问题的具体方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号