Frequently Asked Questions:
Q: Is this a “test” I can “pass” or “fail”?
No. The Peterson Cultural Style Indicator is called a “test” for convenience, but it’s not strictly a “test” because there are no “pass” or “fail” scores, no “good” or “bad” scores, and no “right” or “wrong” cultural profiles. Rather, it is a basic educational tool that was designed to help people begin to understand their cultural style so they can then begin to understand how they might increase their effectiveness in a variety of international settings. The point is to improve and learn, and here are three steps you can take to improve your international skills:
Step 1- Complete the tool online to learn your cultural style.
Accurately determine your cultural style using the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator.
Step 2- Compare and contrast yourself with other cultures.
Once you know your cultural style, you can compare your own style to the typical style of people in any of 95 other countries.
Step 3- Improve your results.
The score report shows you personalized recommendations based on your profile and target country profiles. The report suggests ways you might prepare for possible differences when interacting with people from various target countries.
Q: Is this online tool valid or reliable?
Construct validity (whether an instrument measures something relevant) and face validity (whether it measures what it intends to) of the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator were established through expert consultation and a literature review of widely accepted culture frameworks.
Construct validity: What one cross-culturalist calls “doing vs. being”, another calls “who you are vs. what you do” and another calls “task vs. relationship”. It is commonly accepted in the cross-cultural field that some people are more “individualistic” and some are more “group focused”. It is also commonly accepted (and common sense) that some people are more “direct” and some more “indirect” in communication style. Themes such as these have been recognized and written about by various cross-cultural researchers, writers and thinkers from the 1940s to today. Predictably, there are many approaches to looking at culture and there is disagreement about which themes are most important, and how sub-issues should be grouped within those themes.
In selecting themes for the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator, simplicity and approachability were considered. Labels used by some cross-culturalists, such as Trompenaars’ “specificity vs. diffuseness” or Hofstede’s “masculine vs. feminine”, may examine valid issues, but these labels tend to confuse (or frustrate) people. Terms such as “mastery vs. harmony” or “Confucian dynamism” may be very appropriate for Asian settings, but may not apply to most others. And what one theorist calls “group”, another might call “collectivism”, and a third might call “communitarianism”. The Peterson Cultural Style Indicator is built on broad and common issues that relate to a wide variety of cultures, and the themes are labeled in plain English.
Face validity: A test needs to measure what it purports to measure. It would not be fair to give an intelligence test in Japanese to someone who did not speak Japanese; that would effectively be a Japanese language test, not an intelligence test.
The Peterson Cultural Style Indicator was designed out of dissatisfaction with a number of existing tests or tools. Some instruments purport to measure themes such as open-mindedness or flexibility. While these traits are certainly valuable, almost any test that measures them will be based on honesty. If a test-taker answers the question “I am flexible when dealing with others.” by indicating “Strongly agree”, how do we know this is true? It would be very easy to fake an obvious perfect score on such a test, and then what is really being tested may be “honesty” more than “open-mindedness”.
Any kind of self-reporting instrument requires the subject to be honest. It would be possible to “fake” answers to the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator, but it would not “improve” your score to do so.
A test like the MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) uses over 500 questions and is designed to be scientifically rigorous. The results of the MMPI-2 need to be counted on in serious situations such as an accused criminal being tried in a court of law.
The Peterson Cultural Style Indicator, in the online version available to you through this website, is a basic educational tool that uses only 25 questions and is designed to give quick, yet meaningful insights to professionals working with people from other cultures. It is intended as a quick first qualitative look at culture issues. It should not be used as the only tool for selecting a candidate for an international assignment – other important information must be considered such as personality, work performance history, second language ability, or other job skills. Nor can the tool make suggestions based on a client’s specific business situation, because no data is collected on whether the user is dealing with a merger or acquisition, an internationally-mixed team, hiring foreign-born employees, a specific HR issue, and so on.
Because the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator computer-generates a score based on answers falling on a 0-10 scale, interrater reliability is not an issue. (This is often problematic with other culture tools that use open-ended written responses; such tools require rigorous training of raters to establish acceptable scoring reliability.)
The original research of Brooks Peterson (Peterson doctoral thesis, 1997) in this field used a similar culture instrument (called the Peterson Cultural Awareness Test” [no longer available]) with similar instrument questions and a similar structure. In that study, two of the main methods that were used to verify the reliability of the questions were: 1) face-to-face interviews were conducted with subjects to verify that the questions were not open to misinterpretation and 2) Pearson’s r coefficient showed that subjects answered the paired items with significant levels of consistency. The questions from the instrument in the original 1997 research were edited and updated for a general professional audience and used in the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator. The questions were also arranged and new questions were added to result in five more meaningful culture scales (not four, as in the original research to design the instrument).
As indicated above, this original research established a basic structure and approach for questions, but the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator differs from the original Peterson Cultural Awareness Test (no longer available) in several ways: a) it is targeted at a more broad professional audience (not just university students), b) it departs from and expands on the culture themes used in the original basic research (it uses five culture scales, not four), c) the focus of the questions has changed – instead of asking “What do you think the typical [German] person would do in situation xyz?” it asks “What would you do in situation xyz?” and then you can compare your score to the [Germans], and d) the current form of the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator not offered as a research tool, but as an educational tool to help people meaningfully discuss culture topics as they relate to working with people from other cultures.
Q: Where do the numbers come from?
The country rankings in Peterson Cultural Style Indicator are Brooks Peterson’s professional estimates based on a broad literature review encompassing the insights of a wide variety of researchers, writers, thinkers, practitioners, and country natives in academics, international business and in the cross-cultural field.
The numbers in the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator are not based on empirical research. That is, the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator was not given to 10,000 people in China, 10,000 in Italy and so on… from which an average might be taken. This approach might seem attractive at first glance, but one immediately obvious limitation is that the trend may be toward a generic “corporate” profile when the tool is administered to large groups of corporate businesspeople. Also, the results could also be skewed based on the makeup of the field or the specific company the subjects are in. (For example, are the employees mostly male? Is the industry engineering, creative, medical, financial?)
Some cross-cultural experts may purport to have THE answer (or THE number) for defining various given cultures. Such experts have been subjected to criticisms and questions such as: Does a study of a large number of business(men) in a Spanish corporation apply to the population of Spain in general? Do numbers from research in the late 1960s and early 1970s apply today? Can average numbers based on a very conservative global computer company’s employees (presumably almost all males in the 1970s) accurately represent the general population of various countries? It’s good to critically question someone who might propose to have the “absolute number” for a given country on a given scale.
Is an absolute (and up to the minute!) number possible or even desirable? Some people suggest that the world is changing and becoming much more “westernized”. Others observe that the basic core cultures around the world are not changing at all. The answer is probably between these two extremes. For example, while cultures like Japan have maintained traditions for hundreds (or thousands) of years, in some ways they have undeniably changed drastically in the last 40 years. However, it’s important to not make the mistake of thinking that “Japan is just like the US”, and it’s also important to know that the Japan today’s professionals encounter is not like the Japan of 40 years ago.
If you imagine a scale having Equality as “0” (on the left) and Hierarchy as “10” (on the right), most cross-culturalists would agree to rank Japan towards the right around at least 7 or 8, and possibly around 9 or 10. And most would rank the US somewhere towards the left, perhaps somewhere between zero and 3 or 4. When contrasting these two countries, it’s not realistic or useful to presume there’s an authoritative and exact number such as 2.3 for the US or 8.625 for Japan. On one hand it would be absurd to claim you can boil an entire culture down to a single precise number based on empirical data. On the other hand, it can be helpful to gain some insight about which general direction you might need to look toward when anticipating differences. So the approach of the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator is to help users understand the basic direction of differences (for example, compared to equality-focused Americans, the Japanese are essentially more hierarchy oriented).
Having this kind of basic first understanding can guide us towards anticipating some likely (but never “guaranteed”) differences. For example, equality-focused cultures might tend to use first names (not Mr. or Mrs. and last names, not titles). Basic differences relating to Equality or Hierarchy will also affect how decisions are made in each country, and various other aspects of how people manage and engage in workplace relationships.
One additional important reason we should not rigidly hold to exact numbers for a given country on a given scale is that there are exceptions to every rule. It’s very possible (in fact, it’s guaranteed) that there are Japanese people who rank “1” or “zero” on the Equality side of the scale and Americans who are “9” or “10” on the Hierarchy side. And company culture may affect scores more strongly than national culture. For example, a military battalion will likely be run as a hierarchy no matter how equality focused the home country is. A small creative company may be more equality focused than a 100-year old Fortune 500 company in a conservative industry. And even within families there are differences based on personality. Aspects such as these are what we encounter face-to-face in our real interactions with people from other cultures.
The country rankings in the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator are carefully chosen to be a general starting point for understanding likely (but never guaranteed) directions in which differences may lie.
Here’s a basic consideration Peterson used when assigning rankings to countries in the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator: It’s better to prepare for differences and be pleasantly surprised by similarities than to expect other cultures to be just like our own and to be caught unaware by differences. Because of this, the numbers are weighted towards the left (“zero”) and right (“10”).
Q: Is this tool based on the work of Nancy Adler, Clifford Geertz, Edward Hall, Geert Hofstede, Klockhohn and Strodtbeck, Harry Triandis, (etc.)?
There are a number of researchers, writers, and thinkers in the cross-cultural field who have put forth quite a few good ideas over the last 70+ years. As indicated above, sometimes the terms they use overlap; what one person calls “doingness” vs. “beingness”, another calls “doing” vs. “being” and yet another refers to as “what you do” vs. “who you are”. Often the ideas are similar but the labels change. Usually, a general concept like “individualism” cannot be credited to one person. The Peterson Cultural Style Indicator is based on this type of general cross-cultural concept, with descriptions in plain English. Any similarities between the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator and other instruments or cross-cultural philosophies are purely coincidental and/or due to the fact that they are both based on general knowledge.
Especially valuable contributors to the field in general are: Nancy Adler, Clifford Geertz, Richard Brislin, Edward Hall, Geert Hofstede, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, Harry Triandis, and Fons Trompenaars. These people are in no way associated with the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator, but many have written excellent works which may be of interest to those exploring cross-cultural issues.
Q: Who uses this tool?
Companies that have benefited from this tool include Adobe Systems, Boeing, Capital One, Cisco Systems, Corning, General Electric, Guidant, Harley Davidson, Intel, Kodak, Mellon Bank, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, US Dept. of Defense, Volvo, Whirlpool, and others. Various colleges and universities have used the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator at the graduate and undergraduate levels.
The Peterson Cultural Style Indicator was designed to help internationally-focused professionals people in a variety of settings. It was designed as a basic educational tool for a various types of professionals who face international culture issues.
This can include people:
- preparing to live overseas,
- traveling frequently on international assignments
- conducting international business from the home country,
- mixing with international groups in the workplace,
- communicating with customers, colleagues, and clients from different national and language backgrounds,
- and so on…
Training departments, college students, and researchers are examples of those who have used the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator to help evaluate the effectiveness of cross-cultural training programs, or to enhance cross-cultural training programs.
Q: What kind of “culture” does this tool look at?
The Peterson Cultural Style Indicator focuses on professional and business-related issues such as meetings, decision-making style, management style, and so forth.
The tool focuses on international cultures (i.e. French culture, Chinese culture, US culture, etc.) and are not about “company culture” (they’re not about working at GE vs. working at Microsoft, for example, or about working in the arts versus working in hard science).
This tool is not about “multiculturalism” or “diversity” the way the term is used in the US. In the US, these terms relate to issues of skin color, sexual orientation, open-mindedness, etc. While these are very important areas, the focus of this instrument is simply different- it is on helping professionals improve their effectiveness with international colleagues, customers, etc.
Q: I’m an (American) and I disagree with the way you describe (American) cultural style!
Bear in mind that there are exceptions to every rule: Not all Japanese people are hierarchy focused, for example. Similarly, not all Americans are individualistic. There are regional differences, family differences, and of course even personality differences that must be considered when you look at people.
The Peterson Cultural Style Indicator suggests what most people might be like in the target countries but because there are millions of people in every country, you are guaranteed to encounter exceptions to what this tool describes. You may even be that exception yourself.
Q: The (US and the UK) are almost the same score… are these countries identical?
Many Americans hold the stereotype that people from the UK behave and talk like “royalty” and are surprised that the two countries are actually similar in many basic ways such as a focus on individualism, equality in organizations, etc. But the two countries also have drastically different histories and different cultures. Americans have never lived under a feudal system and this results in different views on modern labor movements. There is no American equivalent to the British Commonwealth, and the US is much more geographically isolated from neighboring countries than the UK. Factors like these result in very different cultures in many important ways; some small, some not so small.
The story is quite similar with contrasts and comparisons between Canada and the US.
It’s important to recognize the important and deep differences between the UK and the US. At the same time, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US, and the UK have much more in common with one another than they do with China, India, Saudi Arabia, and African countries…
Q: Are the numbers up to date? How / when is the tool updated?
On very rare occasion, some of the country profiles have been updated based on specific feedback from subjects. Because most people who complete the Peterson Cultural Style Indicator are professionals or students, it may be inappropriate to conclude that an entire country’s score should be changed based on their scores. However, interesting insights might continue to come from examining how different groups tended to answer specific questions. While not ignoring vast histories of various cultures, Peterson may occasionally consider changing the numbers in specific cases where there have been significant shaping forces such political, social, or economic trends.
In this digital age it might seem interesting to have a “live” version of the test where the numbers change every time someone in some part of the world clicks an answer. But this could also threaten the validity of the test as a particular company / demographic might skew the answers in a given direction. Organizational culture might sometimes have a stronger influence than national culture. For example, a military unit will follow a command style of decision making in any country. Please see the section in Cultural Intelligence entitled “Do Cultures Change Over Time?” describing that cultures change daily, yet cultures remain the same over centuries
Here’s how to reconcile the above facts about the nature of cultures changing in small ways, but remaining stable in big ways: The themes in the tool address general culture themes that change only very slowly. But a user’s score report gives specific examples of a few basic things to be mindful of when interacting with someone from a specific culture that is more to the left or right of (or roughly the same as) his/her profile. It’s up to the users (and perhaps the consultant / instructor guiding them) to apply these examples to the users’ specific situations. The Peterson Cultural Style Indicator is proposed as a starting guide for pointing people in the basic right direction as they build a foundational understanding of why culture matters and apply this to specific countries. The tool is not geared toward issues of immediacy such as today’s hot-off-the-wire news events, government travel advisories, the currency exchange rates, today’s market performance in a specific industry, and so on. Users might want to seek specific information on such issues of immediate impact from other sources such as the CIA World Factbook.
Q: Is the whole world becoming “Americanized” due to globalization?
This is a very common question. Many people point out that the world is becoming “Americanized” or “corporatized” due to globalization. In some ways (and especially in some professional or economic sectors) this may be true, and cultures do indeed change. Yet Japan remains “Japanese” even after thousands of years and in spite of drastic changes in the last 50 years. And no matter what new trends happen in Japan or the US, over the long run Japan will remain relatively more “group” oriented, and the US relatively more “individual” oriented.
So while some aspects of work and life around the world may appear more “Americanized”, cultural differences will always matter. Because of this -as already mentioned above- Peterson suggests that it’s better to prepare for potential differences (and be pleasantly surprised by similarities) than to assume similarities (and be unpleasantly surprised by differences).