Table 2.

Correlations Between the American Scale (CF_ST Distance From the United States), the Chinese Scale (CF_ST Distance From China), and Other Commonly Used Psychological and Cultural Difference and Distance Measures

Correlated measure	American scale			Chinese scale
	r	95% CI	df	r	95% CI	df
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
Individualisma	−.51***	[−.68, −.30]	57	−.02	[−.27, .24]	57
Individualism relativea	.51***	[.30, .68]	57	.06	[−.20, .31]	57
Power Distancea	.42***	[.19, .61]	57	.06	[−.20, .31]	57
Power Distance relativea	.40**	[.16, .60]	57	.00	[−.25, .26]	57
Masculinitya	−.06	[−.32, .19]	57	.07	[−.19, .32]	57
Masculinity relativea	.06	[−.20, .31]	57	.20	[−.06, .44]	57
Uncertainty Avoidancea	.00	[−.25, .26]	57	−.03	[−.29, .22]	57
Uncertainty Avoidance relativea	−.06	[−.31, .20]	57	−.29*	[−.50, −.03]	57
Long-Term Orientationa	−.23†	[−.46, .04]	53	−.55***	[−.71, −.34]	53
Long-Term Orientation relativea	−.06	[−.32, .21]	53	.53***	[.31, .70]	53
Indulgencea	−.44***	[−.63, −.20]	53	.20	[−.07, .44]	53
Indulgence relativea	.50***	[.27, .67]	53	.33*	[.07, .55]	53
Tightness–looseness
Tightness Gelfandb	.41*	[.02, .70]	23	.11	[−.30, .48]	23
Tightness Gelfand relativeb	.62**	[.29, .81]	23	.21	[−.20, .56]	23
Looseness compositec	−.75***	[−.86, −.57]	38	−.12	[−.41, .19]	39
Looseness composite relativec	.54***	[.28, .73]	38	.18	[−.13, .47]	39
Looseness domain specificc	−.71***	[−.83, −.52]	40	−.39*	[−.62, −.10]	40
Looseness domain specific relativec	.73***	[.55, .85]	40	.06	[−.25, .36]	40
Looseness domain generalc	−.81***	[−.90, −.66]	38	−.30†	[−.56, .01]	39
Looseness domain general relativec	.69***	[.48, .82]	38	−.11	[−.40, .21]	39
Schwartz’s values
Harmony valued	−.25†	[−.49, .03]	50	−.06	[−.32, .22]	50
Harmony cultural relatived	−.25†	[−.49, .03]	50	−.09	[−.35, .19]	50
Mastery valued	−.06	[−.32, .22]	50	−.21	[−.46, .07]	50
Mastery value relatived	.25†	[−.03, .49]	50	.21	[−.07, .46]	50
Embeddedness valued	.66***	[.47, .79]	50	.21	[−.06, .46]	50
Embeddedness value relatived	.56***	[.33, .72]	50	.58***	[.37, .74]	50
Hierarchy valued	.27†	[−.00, .50]	50	−.22	[−.46, .06]	50
Hierarchy value relatived	−.03	[−.30, .25]	50	.22	[−.06, .46]	50
Egalitarianism valued	−.40**	[−.61, −.15]	50	.27*	[.00, .51]	50
Egalitarianism value relatived	−.10	[−.36, .18]	50	.27†	[−.00, .50]	50
Affective autonomy valued	−.57***	[−.73, −.35]	50	−.16	[−.42, .11]	50
Affective autonomy value relatived	.55***	[.32, .71]	50	.39**	[.13, .60]	50
Intellectual autonomy valued	−.49***	[−.67, −.25]	50	−.15	[−.41, .13]	50
Intellectual autonomy value relatived	−.16	[−.42, .11]	50	.34**	[.07, .56]	50
Five-factor model of personality
Opennesse	−.29†	[−.57, .05]	33	.16	[−.18, .47]	33
Openness relativee	−.15	[−.46, .19]	33	−.01	[−.34, .33]	33
Conscientiousnesse	−.09	[−.41, .25]	33	−.04	[−.37, .29]	33
Conscientiousness relativee	.18	[−.16, .49]	33	.20	[−.15, .50]	33
Extraversione	−.53**	[−.73, −.23]	33	−.12	[−.44, .22]	33
Extraversion relativee	.48**	[.18, .70]	33	−.00	[−.34, .33]	33
Agreeablenesse	−.33†	[−.59, .01]	33	−.17	[−.48, .17]	33
Agreeableness relativee	−.00	[−.33, .33]	33	.15	[−.19, .46]	33
Neuroticisme	−.09	[−.42, .25]	33	.09	[−.25, .41]	33
Neuroticism relativee	−.06	[−.39, .28]	33	.09	[−.25, .41]	33
Personality standard deviatione	−.40*	[−.64, −.07]	33	−.19	[−.49, .16]	33
Personality standard deviation relativee	.53**	[.23, .73]	33	−.01	[−.34, .33]	33
Other psychological and behavioral measures
Blood donationsf	−.50***	[−.66, −.29]	63	−.34*	[−.54, −.11]	63
Blood donations relativef	.51***	[.31, .67]	63	−.29*	[−.50, −.05]	63
Diplomat Parking Ticketsg	.40***	[.19, .58]	67	.14	[−.10, .37]	67
Diplomat Parking Tickets relativeg			67	.16	[−.08, .39]	67
Corruption CPIh	−.50***	[−.65, −.31]	74	−.15	[−.36, .08]	74
Corruption CPI relativeh	.47***	[.28, −.63]	74	−.03	[−.25, .20]	74
Return wallet without moneyi	−.53**	[−.75, −.21]	31	.32†	[−.05, .61]	31
Return wallet without money relativei	.45*	[.10, .70]	31	.32†	[−.05, .61]	31
Return wallet with moneyi	−.49**	[−.72, −.16]	31	.23	[−.15, .54]	31
Return wallet with money relativei	.51**	[.18, .73]	31	.23	[−.14, .54]	31
Distance measures
Kogut-Singh cultural distance originalj	.41**	[.17, .60]	57	.01	[−.24, .27]	57
Kogut-Singh cultural distance allj	.43**	[.18, .62]	57	.37**	[.11, .58]	57
Geographic Distance Population Centerk	.21†	[−.01, .42]	72	.25*	[.02, .45]	72
Geographic Distance Capitalsk	.23*	[.00, .44]	72	.25*	[.03, .46]	72
Geographic Distance Gravity Weight 1k	.29*	[.06, .48]	72	.26*	[.04, .46]	72
Geographic Distance Gravity Weight 2k	.29*	[.07, .49]	72	.27*	[.05, .47]	72
Linguistic Distance Ethnologuel	.14	[−.17, .43]	38	—	—	38
Linguistic Distance ASJPl	−.17	[−.39, .08]	65	.14	[−.10, .38]	63
Genetic Distance Ethnic Weightingm	.21†	[−.02, .42]	72	.37**	[.16, .55]	72
Genetic Distance Ethnic Pluralitym	.17	[−.07, .38]	72	.38***	[.17, .56]	72

Note: Although low obedience and high creativity were identified by Schulz, Bahrami-Rad, Beauchamp, and Henrich (2019) as part of a Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic package, we did not include them here because they are derived from World Values Survey (WVS) questions. CF_ST = cultural fixation index; CI = confidence interval; ASJP = Automated Similarity Judgment Program.

^aThese values were taken from geert-hofstede.com. Higher scores indicate greater values on the raw scale. Relative values are absolute values relative to the comparison country (United States or China). ^bThese values were taken from Gelfand et al. (2011). Higher scores indicate greater tightness. The mean for East and West Germany was used for Germany. Relative values are absolute values relative to the comparison country (United States or China). ^cThese values were taken from Uz (2015), whose measure of looseness uses variance in WVS responses instead of the Gelfand et al. (2011) scale. Higher scores indicate greater looseness. Relative values are absolute values relative to the comparison country (United States or China). The domain-general and composite values did not exist for China. For the relative measure, we used the domain-specific value as a proxy. ^dThese values are Schwartz’s (2006) culture-value orientation scores. The mean for East and West Germany was used for Germany. The mean for French and German Switzerland was used for Switzerland. Relative values are absolute values relative to the comparison country (United States or China). ^eThe personality-factor data for each country were taken from Table 2 in the study by McCrae, Terracciano, and 79 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project (2005). The mean for French and German Switzerland was used for Switzerland. Relative values are absolute values relative to the comparison country (United States or China). ^fBlood-donations data per 1,000 persons were collated from the World Health Organization Global Status Report on Blood Safety and Availability (Schulz et al., 2019). ^gData on unpaid parking tickets accrued by diplomats in New York City are from the Fisman and Miguel (2007) study. ^hCorruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is a measure of the descriptive corruption norm from Transparency International’s 2015 report. ⁱThe percentage of dropped wallets with money returned was taken from Figure 1 in the study by Cohn, Maréchal, Tannenbaum, and Zünd (2019). ^jCultural distance was calculated following Kogut and Singh (1988) on the original four Hofstede dimensions (Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance; labeled “original”) and on all six dimensions (labeled “all”). ^kGeographic Distance data were taken from the Centre d’Études Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII) GeoDist database (Mayer & Zignago, 2012). Higher scores indicate a larger distance. ^lLinguistic-distance data were taken from the CCEPII Language database (Melitz & Toubal, 2014). Higher scores indicate greater difference in language. ^mThese scores are based on genetic data from the Pemberton, DeGiorgio, and Rosenberg (2013) study, matched to country by Spolaore and Wacziarg (2018). Higher scores indicate a larger genetic distance.

^†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.