Cross-Cultural Research

We revisit a critical problem of cross-cultural research: the non-independence of nations arising from shared ancestry and joint cultural diffusion. Recent review highlighted that few published cross-cultural studies attempt to control for such non-independence, often doing so inefficiently. This may compromise causal claims derived from such analyses. We reassess the problem and caution against using a one-size-fits-all “remedy” for non-independence. Non-independence can involve three distinct issues—(1) confounding by (un)observable variables, (2) Galton’s problem (joint diffusion and shared ancestry) as a special case of confounding, and (3) non-independence as a nuisance—each requiring a careful assessment of the causal model and a specific treatment. Controlling for non-independence by default may result in one of five outcomes, including successful elimination of the bias, improving precision, doing nothing, harming precision, or introducing bias, which we demonstrate with simulations. Instead of rolling a five-sided dice, we encourage cross-cultural scholars to begin with a careful evaluation of their underlying theoretical assumptions and causal models. In essence, we contribute to the refinement of cross-cultural research methodology by advocating for a tailored approach to addressing non-independence that models the real-world processes under examination.

This study investigates how culture shapes nunchi, a social skill deeply embedded in Confucian collectivist values, across Korean and American contexts. Traditionally viewed as uniquely Korean, nunchi involves sensitivity to subtle social cues and adaptive behavior promoting social harmony. We conducted a cross-cultural validation of the Nunchi Scale to compare cross-cultural differences in factor structure, response patterns, and reliability, and to examine factors associated with nunchi. Confirmatory factor analysis results preliminarily revealed a two-factor structure comprising Grasp (perceiving social cues) and Adjust (responding appropriately), with sufficient reliability across both cultures. Measurement invariance and differential item functioning analyses indicated differences in how Koreans and Americans interpreted individual items, suggesting culturally specific nuances in perceiving and enacting nunchi. Higher nunchi scores were associated with lower autistic traits, greater quality of life, and stronger cultural tightness across both groups. Collectivism correlated with higher nunchi only among Americans, suggesting that in individualistic cultures, nunchi aligns closely with personal collectivist beliefs, whereas in collectivistic cultures, it represents broader societal expectations. These findings underscore nunchi as a universally relevant skill, influenced by specific cultural orientations, and highlight the importance of refining the Nunchi Scale for broader cross-cultural applications and exploring its implications in diverse social contexts.

This study provides the first meta-analytic synthesis of organizational justice research in the Arab world, addressing a major gap in a field historically dominated by Western samples. The meta-analysis examined the relationships between the dimensions of organizational justice and key job outcomes, with a focus on comparing findings from Arab culture to those reported in Western cultural research. A comprehensive search of major databases identified 61 relevant studies (49 in Arabic and 12 in English) from 20 Arab countries. All four dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational) showed significant positive correlations with job outcomes. Among these, trust demonstrated the strongest association, while organizational citizenship behaviors and performance showed relatively weaker correlations. Notably, interpersonal justice emerged as the most influential predictor across outcomes—particularly trust—underscoring its prominent role in Arab cultural contexts, whereas procedural justice tends to hold greater significance in Western culture. The analysis also confirmed the moderating role of procedural justice in the relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction, indicating that unfair procedures can diminish the positive effects of favorable outcomes. By demonstrating both universal patterns and culturally specific variations in justice–outcome relationships, this study broadens the global understanding of fairness at work and provides a valuable reference point for cross-cultural organizational research.