IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Power distance belief and preference for transparency


  • Jain, Shalini Sarin
  • Jain, Shailendra Pratap


Transparency is a significant topic of debate in virtually every domain of human existence today. However, an understanding of conditions when it is preferred and when it is not is ambiguous. In this paper, we show that preference for transparency may be driven by people's power distance belief (PDB; Hofstede, 2001). Six studies in different domains—corporate transgressions, job interview settings, and corporate policy—reveal that people low in PDB express greater preference for transparency than those high in PDB. Findings are discussed from the perspective of the need for a clearer definition of transparency and a better understanding of the moderators of its preference.

Suggested Citation

  • Jain, Shalini Sarin & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2018. "Power distance belief and preference for transparency," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 135-142.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:89:y:2018:i:c:p:135-142
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.016

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Brunetti, Aymo & Weder, Beatrice, 2003. "A free press is bad news for corruption," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(7-8), pages 1801-1824, August.
    2. Kolstad, Ivar & Wiig, Arne, 2009. "Is Transparency the Key to Reducing Corruption in Resource-Rich Countries?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 521-532, March.
    3. Tom Morris & Cynthia M Pavett, 1992. "Management Style and Productivity in Two Cultures," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 23(1), pages 169-179, March.
    4. Etienne Farvaque & Catherine Refait-Alexandre & Dhafer Saïdane, 2011. "Corporate disclosure: A review of its (direct and indirect) benefits and costs," International Economics, CEPII research center, issue 128, pages 5-31.
    5. Bryan W Husted, 1999. "Wealth, Culture, and Corruption," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 30(2), pages 339-359, June.
    6. Grossman, Sanford J, 1981. "The Informational Role of Warranties and Private Disclosure about Product Quality," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(3), pages 461-483, December.
    7. Huachao Gao & Karen Page Winterich & Yinlong Zhang, 2016. "All That Glitters Is Not Gold: How Others’ Status Influences the Effect of Power Distance Belief on Status Consumption," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 265-281.
    8. Diamond, Douglas W & Verrecchia, Robert E, 1991. "Disclosure, Liquidity, and the Cost of Capital," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(4), pages 1325-1359, September.
    9. repec:cii:cepiei:2011-q4-128-1 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Shailendra Pratap Jain & Kalpesh Kaushik Desai & Huifang Mao, 2007. "The Influence of Chronic and Situational Self-Construal on Categorization," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 66-76, April.
    11. Jaggi, Bikki & Low, Pek Yee, 2000. "Impact of Culture, Market Forces, and Legal System on Financial Disclosures," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 495-519, 010.
    12. repec:cii:cepiei:2011-q4-128 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. repec:cii:cepiei:2011-q4-128- is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Newson, Marc & Deegan, Craig, 2002. "Global expectations and their association with corporate social disclosure practices in Australia, Singapore, and South Korea," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 183-213.
    15. Stephen Morris & Hyun Song Shin, 2005. "Central Bank Transparency and the Signal Value of Prices," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 36(2), pages 1-66.
    16. Boone, Audra L. & White, Joshua T., 2015. "The effect of institutional ownership on firm transparency and information production," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 508-533.
    17. Dahee Han & Ashok K. Lalwani & Adam Duhachek, 2017. "Power Distance Belief, Power, and Charitable Giving," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 182-195.
    18. Ole†Kristian Hope, 2003. "Accounting Policy Disclosures and Analysts' Forecasts," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 295-321, June.
    19. Alderson, Siobhan & Kakabadse, Andrew, 1994. "Business ethics and Irish management: A cross-cultural study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 432-441, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Sagarika Irangani & Zhiqiang Liu & Weedige Sampath Sanjeewa, 2019. "How a leader’s status distance stimulates employee job performance:The moderating effect of employee loyalty and task interdependence," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 8(6), pages 116-128, October.
    2. Cambier, Fanny & Poncin, Ingrid, 2020. "Inferring brand integrity from marketing communications: The effects of brand transparency signals in a consumer empowerment context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 260-270.
    3. Wioleta Kucharska & Rafał Kowalczyk, 2019. "How to achieve sustainability?—Employee's point of view on company's culture and CSR practice," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 453-467, March.
    4. Mathur, Pragya & Sarin Jain, Shalini, 2020. "Not all that glitters is golden: The impact of procedural fairness perceptions on firm evaluations and customer satisfaction with favorable outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 357-367.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:89:y:2018:i:c:p:135-142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.