E-Learning Activities Blog: Cultural Dimensions & Group Conformity

This assignment presents an e-learning blog that delves into the comparison of Australian and Fijian cultures through the lens of Hofstede's cultural dimensions. The blog analyzes the differences in power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientations between the two countries, providing insights into their societal values and behaviors. Furthermore, the assignment explores the concept of group conformity, drawing upon Solomon Asch's experiment to illustrate how social pressures can influence individual decision-making. The blog identifies normative and informational influences as key factors that can lead individuals to conform to group norms, even when those norms contradict their own beliefs. The assignment concludes by highlighting the impact of situational factors on an individual's susceptibility to group pressure and its effects on making informed decisions.

E-LEARNING ACTIVITIES BLOG 1
E-Learning Activities Blog
Student Name
Institution
Professor

E-LEARNING ACTIVITIES BLOG 2
Table of Contents
Executive summary...................................................................................................................................3
Week 2 - Activity 3- Online tool to explore different countries' 5 dimensions by Hofstede.................4
Week 5 - Activity 2- Solomon Asch and Group Conformity..................................................................6
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................7
References..................................................................................................................................................8

E-LEARNING ACTIVITIES BLOG 3
Executive summary
In this assignment, The Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have been discussed by providing
a comparison between the Fiji and Australian cultures. According to the ranking in the
Hofstede’s cultural indices, Australia is a loosely knit society and tends to assume a democratic
form of governance where leaders consider their junior’s decisions. Furthermore, the blog has
analyzed Solomon Asch's experiment on group conformity. Two situational factors can make a
person to conform to a group norm- informal and normative influences. Normative influence
relates to fear of being ridiculed whereas informal influence relates to a perception that the group
is more informed.

E-LEARNING ACTIVITIES BLOG 4
Week 2 - Activity 3- Online tool to explore different countries' 5 dimensions by Hofstede
How does the Australian culture compare to other world cultures (e.g., your home country
or other countries that you have visited)?
As explained by Rinuastuti et al. (2014, p. 143), the culture of a state encompasses a
combination of beliefs, norms and shared values of the citizens of a particular state. The
following paragraphs represent a comparison between Fiji and Australian cultures:
Power distance: This is the limit within which individuals who are less powerful in a
society may accept an unequal distribution of power (Geert Hofstede, 2018). Australia has a low
power distance (36) which depicts that within Australian firms, a hierarchy is developed for
convenience and those in power rely on their subordinates for their expertise. On the other hand,
Fiji has a high power distance (78) which demonstrates that it is a hierarchical society.
Individualism: This is the degree of interdependence shown by a particular society. In
individualistic societies, people tend to look after their interests and those of their close families
(Hofstede Insights, 2018). Conversely, in collectivist societies, people tend to exist in groups that
are loyal to each other. Fiji scores 14 which means that it is a collectivist society. On the other
hand, Australia scores 90 which means that it is a highly individualistic society.
Masculinity: A high score on masculinity depicts that a particular society is established
on achievement, success, and competition, while a low score depicts a society that cares for one
another (Hofstede Insights, 2018). Australia is considered a masculine society as it scores 61 on
the dimension. Therefore, the behaviors of the Australian citizens at work, in school and
playgrounds are based on a shared value that people should struggle for success. Conversely, Fiji
has an intermediate score of 46 on this dimension.

E-LEARNING ACTIVITIES BLOG 5
Uncertainty avoidance: This is the level at which a society feels uncomfortable in
uncertain situations. Fiji scores 48 on this dimension meaning that it has a relatively pragmatic
culture in relation to uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede Insights, 2018). Conversely, Australia
scores 51 on this dimension, which is an intermediate score.
Long-term orientations: This dimension describes how people of a particular society
have to uphold some connections with their past while handling the present and future challenges
(Minkov & Hofstede, 2014, p. 162). Normative societies tend to have low scores on this
dimension as they prefer norms and time-honored values and traditions while handling societal
change with suspicion, while pragmatic cultures tend to score highly on this dimension as they
prefer efforts and thrift in modern learning and education as a means of preparing for the
uncertain future. Currently, no score has been established for Fiji on this dimension, whereas
Australia scores 2 on this dimension, meaning that it has a normative culture
Indulgence: This is the way individuals tend to control their impulses and desires. A
relatively weak control over a desire is called indulgence (Hofstede Insights, 2018). Fiji has no
score available for this dimension whereas, Australia is an indulgent nation with a score of 71.
Do you agree with the survey results for the Australian culture? Why or why not?
Yes. I tend to agree with the survey. Truly, a score of 90 on individualism is appropriate
for Australia. This is because Australia is a loosely knit nation where people tend to concentrate
on their interests and the interests of their close relatives. Furthermore, Australia can be viewed
as a democratic nation with relatively low power distance where most leaders involve their
subordinates in decision making.

E-LEARNING ACTIVITIES BLOG 6
Week 5 - Activity 2- Solomon Asch and Group Conformity
Does your decision-making always reflect an objective process?
No, sometimes, I tend to be influenced by my friends while making decisions. For
example, I prefer playing football to swimming on Saturdays. However, I find myself going to
swim every Saturday just because I don’t want to feel separated from my friends or look odd.
After watching the video on Asch experiment, Heroic Imagination TV (2012), I am amazed to
discover that this has been as a result of social pressure. In his experiment, Asch discovered that
most people conform to social pressures to avoid being ridiculed and to fit in a group. He termed
this as a normative influence.
Does the desire to be accepted as a part of a group leave one susceptible to
conforming to the group’s norms?
Yes. Some people may make choices that are similar to those made by their friends or
group embers. Their decisions may be wrong or right depending on the ones made by their
friends. Therefore, if their friends make wrong decisions, then their decisions will also be wrong,
and if their friends make good choices, then their choices will also be good. Sometimes, a person
may know that a particular choice is wrong, but still, end up choosing it just to avoid being
ridiculed or feeling odd. A desire to be accepted by a specific group may also make a person to
make wrong choices. This is called normative influence. This type of influence may make one
susceptible to conform to the norms of a particular group by imitating its choices, values, and
behaviors (Kundu & Cummins, 2013, p. 269). In a YouTube video uploaded by Eqivideos
(2007), normative influence has been described as a situation in which a member of a group
makes similar choices like the ones made by other members not because they are versed
concerning their appropriateness, but instead because they want to be part of that group.

E-LEARNING ACTIVITIES BLOG 7
Identify and discuss situational factors that can enable a group to exert pressure
intense enough to change a member's attitude and behavior.
Situational factors comprise external factors usually outside a person’s control that may
influence his/her decisions. Two primary factors may make a group capable of exerting pressure
on a member to conform to its decisions- normative influence and informal influence. Normative
influence results from a person's desire to fit with a particular group. Individuals who make
wrong choices due to normative influence often do so for fear of being ridiculed by other group
members (Hodges, 2014, p. 726). On the other hand, informal influence is a situation whereby
people conform to the choices made by a group because they have a feeling that the group is
more informed than they are. Individuals who succumb to informal influence often feel that they
know less as compared to the group members.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, Fiji and Australian National cultures have vast differences. These
differences have been grouped using Hofstede's cultural dimensions which entails indulgence,
individualism, long-term orientations, masculinity and power distance and ranked using
Hofstede's cultural indices. Australia is a loosely knit society with more democratic leadership.
Also, I have realized that sometimes my choices are always influenced by those made by my
friends. This is called normative influence. Normative and informal influences are examples of
factors that may enable a particular group to lure a person to conform to its decisions. These
influences may hinder a person from making an informed decision.

E-LEARNING ACTIVITIES BLOG 8
References
Eqivideos. 2007. Asch Conformity Experiment [online]. Available from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyih4mkcfja [Accessed 29th April 2018].
Geert Hofstede. 2018. The Importance of an International Perspective [online]. Available from
https://geerthofstede.com/ [Accessed 29th April 2018].
Heroic Imagination TV. 2012. Asch Conformity Experiment [online]. Available from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyddyt1ldha [Accessed 29th April 2018].
Hodges, H. B. 2014. Rethinking conformity and imitation: Divergence, convergence, and social
understanding. Frontiers in psychology, 5. Pp. 726.
Hofstede Insights. 2018. What about Australia? [Online]. Available from: https://www.hofstede-
insights.com/country-comparison/australia,fiji/ [Accessed 29th April 2018].
Kundu, P., & Cummins, D. D. 2013. Morality and conformity: The Asch paradigm applied to
moral decisions. Social Influence, 8(4). Pp. 268-279.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. 2014. A replication of Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension
across nationally representative samples from Europe. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 14(2). Pp. 161-171.
Rinuastuti, H., Hadiwidjojo, D., Rohman, F., & Khusniyah, N. 2014. Measuring Hofstede's Five
Cultural Dimensions at Individual Level and Its Application to Researchers in Tourists'
Behaviors. International Business Research, 7(12). Pp. 143-152.