Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies

Universalism, Particularism and cultural self-awareness:

a comparison of American and Turkish university students
Donald Tompkins
Koç University

Diane Galbraith
Slippery Rock University

Patricia Tompkins
Koç University

Abstract

Universalism implies that correct behavior can be defined and always applies,
while particularism suggests that relationships are more important than abstract social
codes. The United States is generally considered universalistic, and Turkey
particularistic. In the current study, American and Turkish students first reacted to a
hypothetical situation in order to determine their location on the universalist-particularist
dimension. The students were then asked how their reactions may reflect their cultural
values, in order to determine the relative levels of Turkish vs. American cultural self-
awareness. The American students scored higher in partıcularism and the Turkish
students higher in universalism, which may reflect the Turkish cultural value of fairness.
Turkish students had a greater awareness of the cultural basis for their attitudes. Cultural
self-awareness is an important factor in determining business and economic success, and
should be encouraged through university education.

Keywords: universalism, particularism, culture, values, self-awareness

Universalism, Page 1
 Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies

Introduction - Universalism-Particularism

Universalism and particularism are value standards that may guide behavior of
persons or of whole cultures (Smith, Dugan and Trompenaars, 1996). The distinction has
been made since at least the early 1950’s (Parsons and Shils, 1951), and has gained
visibility with the work of Trompenaars and his associates (Smith, Dugan and
Tompenaars, 1996; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998). Universalism implies that
correct behavior can be defined and always applies, while particularism suggests that
relationships come ahead of abstract social codes.
Much of the research on universalism vs. particularism comes from the USA, and
is influenced by American cultural preferences. American researchers often associate
universalism with modernization and sophisticated business practice, and particularism
with less developed rural societies in which everyone knows everyone personally
(Trompenaars and Hampden Turner, 1998, p. 33). In addition, the American (and
“western”) perspective tends to view particularistic decisions as being corrupt and
immoral (Lumby, 2006). Although this culturally biased view has been largely corrected
by Trompenaars’ research, much remains to be done to contrast individuals and cultures
on this dimension.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) regard the United States as a “guided
missile” culture. Such cultures are egalitarian, impersonal and task oriented, which is
consistent with a “universalistic” value system. Turkey, on the other hand, is a “family”
culture, in which people are valued before roles, relationships are close, and the leader is
regarded as a caring “father.” This appears to be more consistent with a particularistic
value system.

Cultural Self-Awareness

There is little doubt that cultural awareness is an increasingly important aspect of

contemporary business. While there are many viewpoints in this area, psychologists have
started to converge around a three component model of cultural competence: (1)
awareness, (2) competence, and (3) skills (Fowers and Davidov, 2006). While this model
was developed by and for psychologists, it would seem to apply to anyone who interacts
with persons from a different cultural background. Competence and skills in such
interactions depend largely upon an awareness of one’s own cultural values and those of
persons from other cultures.
According to Fowers and Davidov (2006), the process of becoming aware of
one’s own values, biases and limitations involves cultural self-exploration, through which
we learn that “our perspectives are limited, partial and relative to our own backgrounds....
[W]e must give up the comforting ethnocentrism, sense of cultural superiority, and
unrecognized privilege that is often part of our untutored cultural outlook” (p. 585).

Subjects

Subjects in the current study were 130 American university students enrolled in
an Organizational Behavior class and 42 Turkish university students enrolled in an
English language class. Both American and Turkish classes had roughly equal numbers

Universalism, Page 2
 Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies

of men and women, and both were predominantly traditional students in their late teens
and early twenties.

Method

The students engaged in a class exercise that was based on one of the scenarios
used by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), to assess universalism vs.
particularism. Each student was presented with the following instructions:

You are a professional journalist who writes a restaurant review column for a
major newspaper. A close friend of yours has invested all her savings in her new
restaurant. You have dined there and think the restaurant is not much good. Does
your friend have some right to expect you to "hedge" your review or does your
friend have no right to expect this at all?

1. Provide your individual answer:

___ Yes, she has some right to expect this.

___ No, she has no right to expect this.

2. Form a group of 3-4 persons. Discuss this issue as a group and reach a group
consensus on this question.

3. Explain (a) your individual answer, (b) the group's answer. How do these
answers reflect the values of yourself, your group, and your culture?

Since this scenario was the basis for a class exercise in which students could
discuss their individual answers, reach a group consensus, and reflect on how the results
may be a product of their culture, there was the opportunity to probe the
universalist/particularist distinction in more depth than in previous research, and to draw
some conclusions about the cultural self-awareness of American and Turkish students.

Hypotheses

It is hypothesized that:

(1) a quantitative assessment of student responses to the scenario (from Part 1 of the
exercise) will reveal a significant correlation between nationality (Turkish vs. American)
and cultural values (particularistic vs. universalistic).
(2) a qualitative assessment of student interpretations of their responses (from Parts 2 and
3 of the exercise) will reveal a relationship between nationality (Turkish vs. American)
and cultural self awareness.

Results

The results are shown in Table 1.

Universalism, Page 3
 Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies

Table 1
Particularistic vs. Universalistic Responses
Of Turkish and American Students

Response Turkish students American students Totals

Particularistic 8 (19%) 85 (65%) 93
Universalistic 34 (81%) 45 (35%) 72
Totals 42 130 172

As seen in the table, 34 of the 42 Turkish students (81%) responded in a

universalistic manner (choosing not to “hedge” the restaurant review for a friend), while
only 45 of the 130 American students (35%) responded this way. Conversely, 65% of the
American students, but only 19% of the Turkish students, responded in a particularistic
manner.

The data was then analyzed using the Vassar Statistics Package
(http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/tab2x2.html). The phi coefficient (for correlation between
two dichotomous variables) was .40, indicating a moderately strong and highly
significant (p<.0001) correlation between nationality (Turkish vs. American) and cultural
values (particularistic vs. universalistic). These results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2
Data Analysis Using the Vassar Statistics Package

Data Entry
X Expected Cell
Frequencies per
0 1 Totals Null Hypothesis
8 85 93 22.71 70.29
1
Y
34 45 79 19.29 59.71
0

42 130 172
Totals

Universalism, Page 4
 Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies

Chi-Square The Yates value is corrected for continuity; the Pearson

Phi Yates Pearson value is not. Both probability estimates are non-directional.
+0.4 25.61 27.45

<.0001
P <.0001

Fisher Exact Probability Test:T

1.2434646065357668e-7
one-tailed
P
1.3635940971945942e-7
two-tailed

Results of the more qualitative, open-ended, part of the study support the
conclusion that, while both American and Turkish students have some awareness of their
cultural values, there is some tendency to inflate the relationship between their cultural
and their personal values, especially among the American students (see Table 3). For
example, an American student who chose to “hedge” the review wrote that “...we need to
help her out in the end. This shows how our culture is relationship oriented.” Another
American student, who chose not to hedge, wrote “My values of friendship should not
interfere with business, and I think our culture agrees with that too.”
Similarly, a Turkish student who chose to hedge wrote “I think that in our culture
looking after your friend is common and almost everybody does it,” and several who
chose not to hedge cited truthfulness as an important aspect of Turkish culture. There
were also several Turkish students, however, who indicated that they would not hedge
even though this kind of behavior was characteristic of the Turkish culture. For example,
one student who chose not to hedge wrote “...in my culture you must protect your friend
but I don’t think it is true. I have responsibility for my job so I must do my work
correctly.”
Table 3
Typical Turkish and American Statements on Personal and Cultural Values

Understanding that personal and cultural values Incorrectly assuming correspondence

may differ: between personal and cultural values:
A Turkish student writes that “...in my culture An American student writes that “...we
you must protect your friend but I don’t think it need to help her out in the end. This
is true. I have responsibility for my job so I shows how our culture is relationship
must do my work correctly.” oriented.”

Universalism, Page 5
 Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies

These results indicate an interesting paradox. On the one hand, Turkish students
were more likely to be self-critical of their culture, and not to confuse their personal and
cultural values. On the other hand, the basis for this self-criticism was not supported by
this research, since the students overwhelmingly (81%) chose not to hedge on the review.
This finding may indicate that the students share a cultural stereotype of Turks as valuing
interpersonal relations above objectivity that is not necessarily true. To the extent that this
stereotype is negative (and student comments seemed to suggest that they felt it was),
these results seem similar to research findings that women and minorities often share the
same stereotypes of their own group that are held by the male or majority group.

Conclusions

The results support both hypotheses. There were positive relationships between
nationality and both (1) universalism-particularism, and (2) cultural self-awareness.
Turkish students were more universalistic than American students and they were more
aware of the influence of their culture on their responses.
One reason for the results of this study could be that, though generally viewed as
a “particularistic” culture because of its emphasis on interpersonal relationships, there is a
strain of universalism in Turkey as well. In a study of English vs. Turkish teachers’ goals,
Karakaya (2004) notes a Turkish universalistic emphasis on equality and educational
fairness that goes back to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. Some
Turkish students recognized this aspect of the Turkish culture as well. For example, one
student wrote “I think one of the basic elements of Turkish culture is fair. I have taken it
as a value to myself.” Perhaps a distinction should be made between when a
universalistic decision stems from “fairness” versus when it stems from “objectivity.” In
the former case, someone from a person-related society such as Turkey might make the
universalistic choice.
Another reason for the results may be related to the specific scenario that was
used in this study. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) note that countries may be
more or less universalist depending on what the rules are about. French and Italian
managers, for example, “believe that when writing on a subject as important as food, you
have a universal obligation to truth” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p. 36).
Turks are very proud of, and serious about, their food as well, so may be expected to
react similarly to the French and Italians in this respect.
One implication of this study involves leadership practices. In a study of 6052
middle level managers from 22 European countries, a team of researchers led by
Brodbeck and Frese (2000) found that there is a strong correlation between societal
cultural diversity and leadership style. In addition, the kind of style found to be effective
in one region may not be effective in another. An American manager in Turkey, or any
other country, must be aware of the culture before choosing a leadership style.
In general, American managers must understand their own cultural perspective
and the cultural differences of others, and be aware that “cultural stereotypes” do not
always apply. It may be assumed by an American manager in Turkey, for example, that
workers will “lie” to protect their associates. The current study suggests that this may be

Universalism, Page 6
 Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies

actually less true in Turkey than it is in the United States, at least as far as certain issues
are concerned.
The current study also suggests that persons in other societies, such as Turkey,
may have higher cultural self-awareness than Americans. As a result: (1) they may have a
competitive advantage over Americans when dealing with other countries, and (2) their
possibly negative stereotypes of Americans as being provincial and ethnocentric may be
reinforced.
Although based on limited data from 180 American students in a single
university, the results of this study are consistent with other research that suggests that
the American educational system should place more stress on cultural differences.
Coverage of the work of such investigators as Hofstede (1980; 1991) in most
management and organizational behavior texts is a step in this direction. Trying to give
American students and faculty foreign exchange opportunities, and attracting more
students from abroad to American classrooms, would be other positive steps.
Teaching a diversity course such as one described by Heuberger (1999), and having
management classes with exercises and role plays such as the one described in the present
study, seem warranted. A modified and abridged version of an exercise developed by
Roysircar (2004), which focuses even more directly on cultural self-awareness, is as
follows:

1. What is your background? You may refer to your culture, ethnicity, race , or
multicultural/multiethnic background.
2. What are the values of the cultural group that have influenced you the most?
3. What are your personal differences from your cultural or primary reference
group?
4. What are your feelings about being a member of your cultural or primary
reference group?
5. When you’re with someone different from you, how do you find common ground
to prevent cultural conflict?

Future Studies

More research is needed in this area, especially studies that (1) expand Turkish
and American sample sizes, (2) include more measures of univeralism/particularism, and
(3) quantify the cultural self-awareness dimension. The fact that Turkey is currently a
candidate for EU membership makes it especially important to understand the values of
the Turkish people, and how they may be similar or different from our own.

Universalism, Page 7
 Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies

References

Brodbeck, F. C. & Frese, M. (2000). Cultural variation of leadership prototypes

across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 1-29.
Fowers, B. J. & Davidov, B. J. (2006). The virtue of multiculturalism: Personal
transformation, character, and openness to other. American Psychologist,
Vol. 61, No. 6, pp.581-594.
Heuberger, B. (1999). Strength through cultural diversity. College Teaching,
Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 107-113.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Karakaya, S. (2004). A comparative study: English and Turkish teachers’
conceptions of their professional responsibility. Educational Studies, Vol. 30,
No. 3, pp. 195-216.
Lumby, J. ( 2006). International perspectives on leadership and management.
Management in Education, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 7-10.
Parsons, T. & Shils, E.A. (Eds.) (1951). Toward a general theory of action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roysircar, G. (2004). Cultural self-awareness assessment: Practice examples from
psychology training. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 35,
No. 6, pp.658-666.
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars. F. (1996). National culture and the values
of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 231-264.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture:
Understanding cultural diversity in global business. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Universalism, Page 8