- International Business Review Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 263-274, 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain 0969-5931/94 $7.00 + 0.00

Using CAD Scales for Cross- CAD Scales for Cross-cultural

cultural Marketing Marketing

Laurence Jacobs* and Reginald Worthleyt University of Hawaii, 2404 Made Way,

Honolulu, HI 94822, USA

Abstract - CAD (compliant, aggressive, detached) scales have been used in marketing research for many years, however, they have not been widely utilized in cross-cultural studies. International marketers can gain additional insight into market differences with this technique. CAD scales share cross-cultural application problems with all other attitudinal tests. While this methodology is far from perfect, it does provide the international marketer with an additional tool to enhance the understanding of cultural differences. To illustrate how this technique can be used, a study was performed. University students in China, Japan, and the United States were surveyed. The results of our comparisons suggest that Chinese students were higher on all three scales while the United States students tended to be more compliant than the Japanese sample, although all three samples were compliant. The United States sample was roughly equal to the Japanese in aggressiveness and detachment.

Key Words - CAD Scales, Cross-cultural Marketing.

Introduction CAD (compliant, aggressive, detached) scales have received much attention in the marketing research literature over the past 25 years. Although the roots are found in Homey’s Our Inner Conflicts (1943, it was Cohen’s dissertation and later a Journal of Marketing Research (1967) article that showed the marketing applications of this technique. Horney (1945) suggested that people’s interpersonal orientation can be classified into three groups: a movement toward other people (compliant), a movement against other people (aggressive), and a movement away from other people (detached). She developed a 35 item scale to measure the individual’s tendencies in each direction (Appendix).

According to Cohen (1967):

Compliant-oriented people want to be part of the activities of others. They wish to be loved, wanted, appreciated, and needed. Compliant people become oversensitive to other’s needs, overgenerous, overgrateful, and overconsiderate. Such people try to avoid conflict and subordinate themselves to the wishes of others.

Aggressive-oriented people want to achieve success, prestige, and admiration. Aggressive people strive to be superior strategists, to control their emotions, and to bring their fears under control. The aggressive person seeks to manipulate others by achieving power over them.

Detached-oriented people want to put emotional “distance” between themselves and others. Freedom from obligations, independence, and self-sufficiency is highly valued.

The authors wish to thank the late Charles Keown, Professor of Marketing at the University of Hawaii, for his invaluable help in collecting the data for this study.

263

264

International Business Review

373

Such people do not want to be influenced or to share experiences. Conformity is repellant; intelligence and reasoning are valued instead of feelings (Cohen, 1967, pp. 270-271).

Over the years, several marketing and psychology studies have used this technique. For example, in studying preference for brand name consumer products, Cohen (1967, 1968) concluded that compliant personality people prefer brand names. They also use more mouthwash and toilet soap. By contrast, aggressive types prefer blade razors to electric razors and used more after-shave lotions than the other personality types. Detached-oriented consumers, on the other hand, are least likely to be aware of brand names.

Rosenberg (1967) studied three groups of university students with different majors. He concluded that of these, social work students were the most compliant, MBAs the most aggressive, and geology students the most detached.

In another study, Rendon (1987) correlated CAD scale results with the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule for nurses. His findings showed that nurses have high levels of detachment and compliance and low needs for dominance, autonomy, and achievement.

Evaluations of the CAD Scale Over the years, several studies have been undertaken to determine the reliability and validity of this instrument. Cohen (1967) reports both test-retest and internal consistency reliability to be high.

In a review article, Kassarjian (1971) concludes that this type of study, while not conclusive, is promising and has significance for marketing. While not a strong endorsement, Kassarjian’s general conclusion is that ,virtually all such measures are flawed.

Kernan (1971) reports the use of the CAD test in five unpublished studies. His evaluation of this technique is:

The evidence seems reasonably compelling, however, the CAD is a highly useful way to “first-cut” a data batch, so long as the behavior under analysis is likely to be a function of interpersonal disposition. It contains no socially-taboo statements. And if the studies cited are any indication, it appears that it possesses a most desirable, albeit pragmatic, of instrument attributes: it works (Kernan, 1971, p. 310).

Not all of the evaluations of the CAD test have been positive. Noerager (1979) reports the results of a test of 153 male US Army trainees. He concludes there are several serious problems in using CAD.

(1) Low internal consistency reliability. (2) Weak convergent validity. (3) Weak discriminant validity. (4) Non-interpretable 15 factor structure within the 35 item CAD inventory.

The author softens these adverse findings by suggesting that the results

265

might be attributed to the make-up of the sample. He concludes that better CAD Scales for results would likely be obtained from a student population. Cross-cultural

Munson and Spivey (1982) reach similar (to Noerager) findings in a study of 203 women. Their conclusion is:

Marketing

The current results suggest that the CAD deserves further consideration. It has the potential to be an easy to administer and easy to interpret instrument to gauge the interpersonal response orientation of individuals. CAD seems particularly appropriate for the study of class (student) behaviors (Munson and Spivey, 1982, p. 897).

Heeler and Ray (1972) evaluate Cohen’s study:

He (Cohen) compared the CAD with an occupational preference scale. The available reliabilities are at an acceptable level, and there seems to be reasonable measure of validity for “compliant”, some convergent and little discriminant validity for “detached”, and no measure validity for “aggressive”. Since Cohen expressed doubts about the quality of the occupational scale, this limited validation of CAD should be regarded as positive and worthy of further examination (Heeler and Ray, 1972, p. 364).

Leary (1979), writing in the psychology discipline, reports a study of 56 male and 72 female undergraduates. The CAD scores were correlated with the results of the Personal Information Questionnaire. Leary used a battery of 35, seven-point, bipolar-adjective scales to reflect the social image of the respondents. He states:

Analysis showed that subjects’ interpersonal orientations were directly reflected in the nature of the social images subjects projected to the other group members (Leary, 1979, p. 45 1).

He concludes:

The positive results obtained here also add support to the validity of the scale . . as a measure of interpersonal orientation and as an indicator of self-presentational style (Leary, 1979, p. 455).

Rentz (1988) studied Lifestyle, Opinion Leadership, CAD, and Belief and Satisfaction Scales. His test was conducted with 54 undergraduate and graduate students. He found that all scales had problems. He concludes:

The compliance and aggressive scales have “acceptable”, or near acceptable, internal consistency reliabilities (above 0.70), while the detachment scale falls short of the 0.70 standard. Test-retest coefficients are moderate for all three scales, ranging from 0.567 to 0.788 (Rentz, 1988, p. 146).

The detachment factor that was below 0.70 was 0.649. The CAD scale values (0.750, 0.749, and 0.649) were in the middle of all the tested scales that ranged from 0.624 to 0.885. The general conclusion, then, might be that CAD is no worse than any of the other tested scales.

A series of articles starting in the late 1960s debated the issues of construct validity (Berrien, 1968; Berry, 1969; Gordon and Kikuchi, 1966). These

266

International Business Review

393

authors point out the problems of etic-emic approaches. Douglas and Craig (1983) summarize the two concepts:

The “emic” school holds that attitudinal and behavioral phenomena are unique to a culture, and best understood in their own terms. Consequently, emphasis is placed on studying the particularities of each country, identifying and understanding its unique faults. . (T)his . . . will require measures specifically adapted to each cultural contact.

The “etic” school, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with identifying and assessing universal attitudinal and behavioral concepts and developing pan-cultural or “culture-free” measures. The use of such measures facilitates comparison but can give rise to a number of methodological problems in which constructs and measures developed in one country are applied without, or with minimal adaptation to, other countries (Douglas and Craig, 1983, p. 133).

The problems and challenges of both etic and emit studies are well publicized (Berry, 1969; Berrien, 1968; Davis et al., 1981; Gordon and Kikuchi, 1966; Green and White, 1976; Netemeyer et al., 1991; Parameswaran and Yaprak, 1987; Sekaran, 1983; Sekaran and Martin, 1982). Netemeyer et al. (1991) make an argument in favor of using relatively matched samples such as students with similar majors for cross-cultural (etic) research. They also note that student populations are more accepting of the views and ideas of others. They seem to be more open to questionnaire wording problems than the older segments of society.

While CAD scales have some problems, these shortcomings appear no worse than for other similar tests. On the other hand, there are several major advantages of CAD tests for cross-cultural research. These are summarized by Noerager (1979):

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

The questions are not sophisticated (it is easy to complete). There is evidence that CAD scores are related to several facets of consumer behavior. CAD offers an inexpensive and simpler means of primary data collection than other personality-related measures such as psychographics. CAD scores yield three identifiable interpersonality orientation classifications. A person who scores high on the compliant dimension is unlikely to be simultaneously classified also as either highly aggressive or highly detached.

The Study Of the many CAD studies, few deal with cross-cultural comparisons. Levitt (1983) and others suggest that a global strategy of treating all multinational markets in the same way is the marketing wave of the future. A global approach, however, may lose the subtlety of each market. If different markets have dissimilar CAD patterns, then there may be opportunities for the marketer to capitalize on these variations. The purpose of this study is to compare the CAD patterns of Japanese, Chinese, and American students. If

267

Age < 20

China

1(3%)

Japan

0 (0%)

United States CAD Scales for Cross-cultural

0 (0%) Marketing

20-25 > 25

Gender Male Female

27 (83%) 25 (69%) 42 (79%) 4 (14%) 11(31%) 11 (21%)

25 (78%) 35 (97%) 23 (43%) 7 (22%) I (3%) 30 (57%)

Sample size N 32 36 53

Table 1 Demographics

these groups demonstrate significant differences, it will provide evidence to marketers that this type of investigation can supply useful marketing data and may be used for additional cross-cultural insight.

A convenience sample of graduate students studying business in major universities in Japan, China, and the United States formed the basis of our study. An effort was made to coordinate the sample size, and 32 students were surveyed in China, 36 in Japan, and 53 in the United States. While the sample size is small, it is similar in size to the Cohen study. The demographic data are shown in Table 1.

While the graduate student populations are similar, there are some differences. The most apparent dissimilarity is the male make-up of the Japanese sample. To a lesser degree, this also appears in the Chinese results. Also, the Japanese sample is somewhat older than the other two.

It was recognized that the use of a student population might limit the general usefulness of the results. However, the criticism of the CAD methodology (Noerager, 1979; Sullivan and O’Connor, 1984) suggests that better results are obtained from homogeneous groups such as students. Specifically, graduate students studying business administration were selected as the data base to detect fundamental differences in interpersonal CAD orientation with the minimum contamination from other demographic considerations.

Care was taken to ensure that the sample reflected the culture being studied. The United States sample, for example, contains only American born citizens. The non-native influence was not a problem in China and Japan.

Methodology The questionnaire was translated into Chinese and Japanese by native speakers and was later back-translated by other native speakers. No significant errors were detected. A researcher was present during the test to handle any problems that might arise; no problems were detected. The test requires no translation of open-ended responses.

The CAD instrument consists of three factors designed to measure compliance, aggressiveness, and detachment. The test is a self-administered

268

International Business Review

333

battery of six-point scales that range from “extremely undesirable” to “extremely desirable”. Only the end-points are labeled.

In computing the results, each respondent received a score on each of the three factors. Country scores were then obtained by summing over the number of items in each dimension. Then the average scores in that dimension were computed.

The instrument was administered with no instructions other than those provided (see Appendix). Most respondents required about 10 min to complete the questionnaire. An effort was made to preclude social interaction from influencing the individual respondents. Each item was scored according to Cohen’s (1967) procedures by assigning a value of one to six (beginning with “extremely undesirable”) to the responses. As suggested by Cohen, items not answered were given a value of three.

Cohen (1967) suggests that the six-point scale used was more comfortable for the respondents than a four-point scale. This six-point scale also provides a wider range of responses and an increase in the reliability of the scores.

Results To gain a perspective for our data, we first compared our United States results with those found by Cohen (1968). The means of all three factors in this study are higher than those found by Cohen (Tables 2 and 3). Only the aggressive factor has a mean that falls in the range of means generated by Cohen’s three student groups.

While these results were somewhat surprising, there are several possible explanations. Cohen’s data were collected about 25 years ago and the world, or at least the students, may be different today. Cohen’s data may reflect the students at his university in the late 1960s. The students of the 1990s are greatly different from the students of the 1960s. Finally, our data were generated from MBAs, which tended to be older, while Cohen’s samples consisted of undergraduates.

Business administration Geology

Social welfare

Table 3. Compliant 37.34 42.02 (6.5)

Cohens’s 1968 Sample Aggressive 45.81 48.06 (7.4)

versus our United Detached 25.36 33.42 (5.4)

States Sample Sample size 87 53

35.70 36.67 50.70 44.96 25.03 28.60

30 25

39.41 I 41.88 23.88

32

Cohen’s means for all groups

Present study mean (SD)

269

China Japan United States

Compliant Aggressive Detached Sample size

47.38 (4.9) 56.34 (12.3) 36.16 (11.1)

32

F-Value

34.92 (8.1) 46.31 (10.8) 31.75 (6.1)

36

P-Value

42.02 (6.5) 48.06 (7.4) 33.42 (5.4)

53

Duncan’s multiple

range

Compliant 71.18 Aggressive 22.07 Detached 7.67

J, Japan; US, United States; C, China.

< 0.0001 J<US<C < 0.0001 (J = US) < C 0.0007 (J = US) < C

Next we compared the results of the survey for the three countries. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations (SD) for the CAD scores from the student groups in China, Japan, and the United States. This table also reports the F-values from a nonparametric analysis-of-variance. The P-values and the resulting ordering of the three countries, based upon a Duncan’s multiple range test, are also provided.

The tests show that on the compliant factor, all three groups are different. The Chinese students had the highest mean scores (more compliant) while the Japanese had the lowest (less compliant). On the other factors, Chinese students were also the highest. Although there is no significant difference between Japanese and American students, the Japanese mean is lower on both scales.

The means of the Chinese students range from 8 to 17% higher than the United States means, with the aggressive factor the highest and the detached factor the lowest. In contrast, the means of the Japanese sample ranged from 4 to 17% lower, with the compliant factor the lowest and the aggressive factor the closest to the American student group.

Because the three factors do not have the same numbers of items, the results have meaning only in a relative sense. Thus a conclusion, based on Table 4, that the Chinese students are more compliant than the other two groups is justified. A conclusion that the Chinese students are more aggressive than they are compliant, however, may not be justified. That is, cross-country comparisons are permitted but cross-scale (within one country) comparisons are not justified.

Because the aggressive factor has 50% more items than the other two scales, it should not be assumed that all student groups are aggressive people. Table 5 takes this size difference into account. Table 5 also reflects an analysis by individual. The scores of each respondent were analyzed to determine if

CAD Scales for Cross-cultural

Marketing

Table 4. CAD Scores

Mean (SD)

270

International Business Review

393

Table 5. Classification of Subject by Dominant Trait

Compliant Aggressive Detached Sample size

China

30 (94%) 1(3%) 1(3%) 32

Japan

25 (69%) 4(11%) 7 (20%)

36

United States

42 (80%) 5 (9%) 6 (11%)

53

the student was compliant, aggressive, or detached. The classification of individuals by their dominant mean score on each questionnaire item is shown in Table 5.

This table reveals that the student group in China is predominantly compliant-oriented. Only two of the 32 subjects were dominant on the other two factors. In contrast the groups in both the United States and Japan were mixed. A majority were classified as compliant but a substantial minority were dominant on the other two scales. Japan had fewer classified as compliant than the United States, but more classified as detached. Both American and Japanese student groups had about the same percentage classified as aggressive.

Finally Cronbach’s Alpha was used to assess the reliability of the data. Table 6 presents the results of this analysis. The scales show strong, but not excellent, reliabilities in the United States sample, marginal reliabilities in the Chinese group, and extremely poor reliabilities in the Japanese data.

If nothing more, this points out the “emic” hazards of exporting a scale developed in another culture. Although there were no significant problems with translation, there still appears to have been a cultural inability to respond reliably.

Marketing Implications Societies as large as China, with more than a billion people; the United States, with more than 250 million people; and Japan, with more than 100 million people defy generalization. However, to achieve the advantages and efficiencies of mass marketing, the international marketer must form categories. These classifications may reflect general cultural characteristics or qualities of specific subculture within the total society.

Our sample does not represent the entire population of each country and it was not randomly selected. However, our purpose was not to establish cross- cultural generalizations. Rather it was to demonstrate cross-cultural

China J3pan United States

Compliant 0.46 0.02 0.62 Table 6 Aggressive 0.65 0.35 0.72 Cronbach’s Alpha Detached 0.43 0.23 0.61

differences among similar (student) groups. For our intention, this procedure CAD Scales for was correct but the results should not be extended to more general conclusions Cross-cultural about the population. Marketing

While the results obtained in this research reflect the attitudes of graduate students of business, the use of this methodology may have significant implications for the marketer. For example, compliant societies may demonstrate a need to conform to accepted norms. The members may show a high need for acceptance and appreciation. They may be inhibited by criticism and blame themselves when things go wrong.

Aggressive societies may have individuals competing eagerly to gain admiration, excellence, and success. They value money, power, and self- interest. They desire to be noticed.

Detached societies may contain people who distrust others. They may wish to place emotional space between themselves and others. They may feel that they have skills that should be recognized even if such skills are never displayed.

International marketing strategy may suggest that based on CAD scores different products may be designed to appeal to specific countries or segments within a country. Aggressive price competition may also have various degrees of success with the different markets. Product image and promotional changes can be made to reflect the goals and values of the respective interpersonal types (Cohen, 1967). The use of selective media also can be based upon these differences. Certain magazines, for example, may be used to deliver different appeals to the compliant, aggressive, or detached potential customers.

Promotion may vary based upon the dominant societal orientation. In compliant cultures, marketers may wish to minimize conflict and power- seeking while conforming to the expectations of others. Advertising, for example, might show people in socially desirable situations, trying to enhance friendships. These advertisements should avoid the appearance of dominance and aggression.

Promotion in aggressive societies, by contrast, might emphasize power, achievement, and recognition. Gaining and maintaining a high social image in prominence and strength could be successful advertising themes. Models, with whom the customer identifies, should be viewed as “in control”.

Promotion in detached countries, on the other hand, might stress rationality and de-emphasize sentiment. Favorable evaluations of others and group conformity usually will be unsuccessful appeals. Images of nonconcem and aloofness are likely to be more successful.

Personal selling also may vary from culture to culture. Selling to compliant buyers should stress social desirability and enhancement of the buyer’s status and prestige. Low-key selling will probably be the most effective method. A second strategy might be to emphasize the buyer’s need for status and prestige. Phrases such as, “As I’m sure you know . . .” and “Someone in your position will appreciate . . .” may be effective. Buyers in detached societies may desire a straight-forward, factual sales presentation. Cost-benefit analyses may be the most successful.

272

International Business Review

393

Caveats We are assuming in this paper that the constructs of compliance, aggressiveness, and detachment are relevant to the Chinese and Japanese in the same way they have meaning to American students. This assumption is supported by Cohen (1967, 1968) and others (Heeler and Ray, 1972; Horney, 1945; Kernan, 1971). Our findings in the Japanese sample suggest that this assumption may need to be tested by future research.

Another limitation is that while cultural characteristics may be useful for mass marketing, submarkets or niches have different traits. All three cultures may have significant pockets of C or A or D oriented people. These attitudes may not coincide with the general attitudes of the population as a whole. That is, factors such as family background, local area subcultures, and past experiences will be reflected in the CAD scores. A problem faced by all marketers is how to segment the population into relevant, meaningful, and profitable groups. The critical issue then becomes how to appeal to this market. The CAD methodology can help in guiding this decision.

CAD analysis also may be product or situation specific. For example, an individual purchasing low-priced, frequently-purchased items may not reflect this same CAD profile as when purchasing high-priced, complicated items. Also a purchasing agent who buys one roll of paper towels for his family may act differently when buying a container load of paper towels for his business. That is, even the same person in the same culture may reflect different CAD values in different situations. This, too, is left for future research.

Companies also must perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the information obtained from a CAD study is worth the investment. A formal CAD study may simply reveal the obvious. On the other side, however, stereotypes are not always true. The CAD results can provide an inexpensive confirmation of these market assumptions.

Conclusions The results of this current study suggest that CAD deserves further consideration in cross-cultural studies. It is easy to administer. The questions are culturally non-threatening. It is easy to interpret the results. It seems at least as good as other available instruments. It appears to provide a significant amount of information for the international marketer.

Multinational marketers can use the CAD test to study significant market segments and classify them as compliant, aggressive, or detached. By using such a research tool, the marketer can also analyze how the competitors are positioned. This may lead to positioning revision, product redesign, and promotional appeals more finely tuned to the target market.

CAD tests make it possible to understand target markets on an additional level. Certainly, CAD has its problems. However, no matter which classification system is used, from demographics to psychographics or from VALS to CAD, there is distortion from aggregation and over-simplification. Each picture of the market provides additional insight. CAD is a useful tool that should be in the arsenal of every international marketer.

273

References CAD Scales for Berrien, F.K. (1968) Cross-cultural Equivalence of Personality Measures. The Journal ofSocial

Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 3-9. Berry, J.W. (1969) On Cross-cultural Comparability. International Journal ofPsychology, Vol.

Cross-cultural Marketing

4, No. 2, pp. 119-128. Cohen, J.B. (1967) An Interpersonal Orientation to the Study of Consumer Behavior. Journal

of Marketing Research, Vol. 4, August, pp. 270-278. Cohen, B. (1968) Toward an Interpersonal Theory of Consumer Behavior. California

Management Review, Vol. 10, Spring, pp. 73-80. Davis, H.L., Douglas, S.P. and Silk, A.J. (1981) Measure Unreliability: Hidden Threat

to Cross-cultural Marketing Research? Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, Spring, pp. 98- 109.

Douglas, S.P. and Craig, C.S. (1983) Znternational Marketing Research. Prentice-Hall International Series in Management, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Gordon, L. V. and Kikuchi, A. (1966), American Personality Tests in Cross-cultural Research - a Caution. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 179-l 83.

Green, R. and White, P.D. (1976) Methodological Considerations in Cross-cultural Consumer Research. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 7, Fall/Winter, pp. 81-87.

Heeler, R.M. and Ray, M.L. (1972) Measure Validation in Marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, November, pp. 361-370.

Homey, K. (1945) Our Inner Conflicts. Norton, New York. Kassarjian, H.H. (1971) Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review. Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 8, November, pp. 409-418. Kernan, J.B. (1971) The CAD Instrument in Behavioral Diagnosis, in Gardner, D.M. (Ed.),

Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research, pp. 307-311.

Leary, M.R. (1979) Interpersonal Orientation and Self-presentational Style. Psychological Reports, Vol. 45, pp. 451-456.

Levitt, T. (1983) The Globalization of Markets. Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 92-102.

Munson, J. and Spivey, W.A. (1982) The Factorial Validity of an Inventory Assessing Horney’s Interpersonal Response Traits of Compliance, Aggression, and Detachment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 42, pp. 889-898.

Netemeyer, R.G., Durvasula, S. and Lichenstein, D.R. (1991) A Cross-national Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, August, pp. 320-327.

Noerager, J.P. (1979) An Assessment of CAD - a Personality Instrument Developed Specifically for Marketing Research. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 53-59.

Parmeswaran, R. and Yaprak, A. (1987) A Cross National Comparison of Consumer Research Measures. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 18, Spring, pp. 35-49.

Rendon, D. (1987) Understanding Social Roles from a Horneyan Perspective. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 47, Summer, pp. 131-142.

Rentz, J. (1988) An Exploratory Study of the Generalizability of Selected Marketing Measures, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, Spring, pp. 141-150.

Rosenberg, M. (1967) Occupations and Values. Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois. Sekaran, U. (1983) Methodological and Theoretical Issues and Advancements in Cross-cultural

Research. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 14, Fall, pp. 61-73. Sekaran, U. and Martin, H.J. (1982) An Examination of the Psychometric Properties of Some

Commonly Researched Individual Differences, Jobs, and Organizational Variables in Two Cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 13, Spring/Summer, pp. 51- 65.

Sullivan, G.J. and O’Connor, P.J. (1984) A Structural Assessment of the Original and a Modified Version of the CAD Scale. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 12, Fall, pp. 41-5 1.

274

International Business Review 71

Received October 1993 Revised February 1994

Appendix. Questions Asked

Please complete the phrases below by placing a check mark on that blank which best expresses how desirable or undesirable the situation seems to you. The purpose of this survey will be served best if you accurately report your feelings toward each statement.

(1) Being free of emotional ties with others is: (2) Giving comfort to those in need of friends is: (3) The knowledge that most people would be fond of me at all times would be: (4) To refuse to give in to others in an argument seems: (5) Enjoying a good movie by myself is: (6) For me to pay little attention to what others think of me seems: (7) For me to be able to own an item before most of my friends are able to buy it would be: (8) Knowing that others are somewhat envious of me is: (9) To feel that I like everyone I know would be: (10) To be able to work hard while others are elsewhere having fun is: (11) Using pull to get ahead would be: (12) For me to have enough money or power to impress self-styled “big-shots” would be: (13) Basing my life on duty to others is: (14) To work under tension would be: (15) If I could live all alone in a cabin in the woods or mountains it would be: (16) Punishing those who insult my honor is: (17) To give aid to the poor and underprivileged is: (18) Standing in the way of people who are too sure of themselves is: (19) Being free of social obligations is: (20) To have something good to say about everybody is: (21) Telling a waiter when you have received inferior food is: (22) Planning to get along with others is: (23) To be able to spot and exploit weakness in others is: (24) A strong desire to surpass others’ achievements is: (25) Sharing my personal feelings with others would be: (26) To have the ability to blame others for their mistakes is: (27) For me to avoid situations where others can influence me would be: (28) Wanting to repay others’ thoughtless actions with friendship seems: (29) Having to compete with others for various rewards is: (30) If I knew that others paid very little attention to my affairs it would be: (3 1) To defend my rights by force would be: (32) Putting myself out to be considerate of others’ feelings is: (33) Correcting people who express an ignorant belief is: (34) For me to work alone would be: (35) To be fair to people who do things which I consider wrong seems: