Rather, ecological variables are necessary to examine structural, contextual, and sociological effects on human behavior and disease development. Schwartz, 1994 b, p. 823 Many attempts have been made to define (e.g., Rohner, 1984) and then to measure culture. Given the classic definition of culture provided by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), this mapping has usually been made by using values. The most widely known value mapping is the work of Hofstede (1980), whose four value dimensions of Individualism-Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculinity-Femininity are used as organizing and explanatory constructs in many disciplines. Tapping values salient to Chinese people, the Chinese Culture Connection (1987) has identified one additional dimension to the Hofstede four: Confucian Work Dynamism, or short-term versus long-term orientation (Hofstede, 1991). All five dimensions of culture-level values have provided the conceptual impetus for numerous cross-cultural studies. Several major cross-cultural projects have been conducted subsequent to Hofstede's (1980) groundbreaking work. With his theory-derived value survey, Schwartz (1994 a) has identified seven culture-level dimensions, namely, Conservatism, Intellectual Autonomy, Affective Autonomy, Hierarchy, Egalitarian Commitment, Mastery, and Harmony. Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars (1996) have identified two reliable value dimensions at the cultural level from their analysis of managerial values: Egalitarian Commitment versus Conservatism, and Utilitarian Involvement versus Loyal Involvement. Smith and Bond (1998, Ch. 3) concluded that these different value surveys have produced convergent results, lending support to the validity of the cultural dimensions originally identified by Hofstede (1980). Recently, House and his associates (2003) have orchestrated a major project to identify cultural dimensions across 62 countries. A distinctive feature of this multicultural project is that values associated with leadership were measured concurrently with ideal and actual leadership behaviors. The House team has identified nine culture-level dimensions:

No abstract

A comparison was made between Iranian participants living in Iran, Iranian immigrants to Canada, and Canadian‐born participants on the Social Axioms Scale (SAS), including a sixth dimension, Harmony. The Iranian immigrants to Canada endorsed views that were intermediate between the other two groups. In the data from Iran, the relationships between social axioms on the one hand and measures of active coping and adjustment on the other were examined. Belief in Reward for Application predicted Active Coping; acknowledgment of Social Complexity predicted Life‐Satisfaction; and endorsement of belief in Harmony predicted Mastery. Those whose beliefs on Harmony and Social Complexity were closer to their country mean were higher on Mastery and Self‐Esteem, but those whose beliefs on Fate Control were closer to the country mean showed lower Life‐Satisfaction.

No abstract

Introduction Boundaries exist everywhere; there are boundaries throughout our social environment, and houses are no exception. It is widely accepted that house plans and the use of space reflect underlying sociocultural values and associated psychological needs, for the house is not only a physical space in which we shelter but also a space where social interactions take place (for example, Mumford, 1970; Saunders, 1990). As cultural values and norms vary, so do psychological needs (see, for example, Markus and Kitayama, 1991), and the configuration of houses changes accordingly. Culture' is a relatively organised system of shared meanings (Geertz, 1973), and the meaning of social space is part of that system. It is not a simplistic linear causal relationship, in which culture produces house form. There are many elements of culture, which are interwoven and mutually reinforcing (for example, ecological and environmental context, values, notions of personhood, social structure, ontological beliefs, and construction of gender). House form (that is, the shape, the boundaries, and the organisation of the house) is one of these elements. It reinforces values and is enabled by them. Elements of culture are maintained because they work for people; and they work differently in different cultures (and subcultures). (1) The basic boundaries in the house are, therefore, expressions of culturally recognised norms which regulate human behaviour. Seen this way, boundaries function at three distinct but related levels: physical or spatial, sociocultural and psychological. The boundaries at the physical, spatial level are concrete manifestations of social classifications, and social classifications are internalised by people and experienced phenomenologically. To clarify, using a simple but commonplace example: a bar (or pub) usually has an entrance. This is placed on a physical, spatial boundary which marks the area classified