Lead Author: Laetitia Em, l.em@rug.nl

Study A:

General description
We calculate dyadic psychic distance scores with varying sets of antecedents (macro-, team-, individual-level characteristics) so as to investigate the incidence of taking into account different levels onto the variation of the psychic distance scores we obtain. We see how controlling for personal characteristics of the respondents, team properties, and/or country dummies (dyad) influences the scores. Our approach also permits us to embrace the asymmetrical nature of dyadic psychic distance scores (as did Hakanson & Ambos, 2010) and to distinguish between two different facets of psychic distance (perceived differences and perceived difficulties), related yet not capturing the same view.

Main hypothesis:

Country-level variables on their own are a poor predictor of psychic distance.

Variables used:

– Psychic distance (as perceived differences; as perceived difficulties)

– Participants profiles: country of origin; country of study; wave; ID; team ID; age; gender; cultural intelligence; international experience

Study B:

Replication of Hakanson & Ambos’ (2010) paper

Using the dyadic scores obtained in Study A, we replicate and extend Hakanson & Ambos’ (2010) study (regressing CAGE distances onto psychic distance dyadic scores).

2) Using the data containing the questions I requested earlier this year:

Study C:

The different dimensions of psychic distance

Here we want to investigate psychic distance vis-à-vis market selection rather than vis-à-vis fellow team members. It addresses the following questions: if an individual does perceive a distance towards a location, how to characterize these perceptions? So far, psychic distance has been considered in a rather monolithic (and static) way: does an individual perceive a small or a large distance overall towards a location? The impressions characterizing this perception of distance can be broken down into several dimensions, which have not been specified so far. An individual can feel close (or far) to this location and its inhabitants, but also consider it/them positively (or negatively), find them easy to understand (or not), regards them as similar (or different) to him/her.

Main hypothesis:

Some overlap may exist between these dimensions, but each location will not get the same appreciation along these dimensions by any decision maker. An individual may judge a location similar and with rules easy to understand, but not as likeable, maybe due to animosity issues (Klein, 2002; Jung, Ang, Leong, Tan, Pornpitakpan & Kau, 2002) arising from previous wars or colonial links.

Variables used:

– Psychic distance (as perceived differences; as perceived difficulties)
– Participants profiles: country of origin; country of study; wave; ID; team ID; age; gender; cultural intelligence; international experience; conscientiousness; proactive personality; cultural values; emotional intelligence

– location preferences; market