Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an updated and authoritative measure of individualism vs collectivism (IDV-COLL) as a dimension of national culture. Design/methodology/approach Rather than focus solely on Hofstede’s classic work, the authors review the main nation-level studies of IDV-COLL and related constructs to identify the salient cultural differences between rich societies and developing nations. The authors conceptualize and operationalize IDV-COLL on the basis of those differences and propose a new national IDV-COLL index, using new data from large probabilistic samples: 52,974 respondents from 56 countries, adequately representing the national cultures of all inhabited continents. Findings The proposed index is a new, valid measure of IDV-COLL as it is strongly correlated with previous measures of closely associated constructs. As a predictor of important cultural differences that can be expected to be associated with IDV-COLL, it performs better (yields higher correlations) than any known measure of IDV-COLL or a related construct. Research limitations/implications An important facet of IDV-COLL – in-group favoritism vs out-group neglect or exclusionism – does not transpire convincingly from the authors’ operationalization of IDV-COLL. The study relies on self-construals. Respondents are unlikely to construe their selves in terms of such concepts. Practical implications The new IDV-COLL measure can be used as a reliable, up-to-date national index in studies that compare the cultures of rich and developing nations. The new IDV-COLL scale, consisting of only seven items, can be easily used in future studies. Originality/value This is the first IDV-COLL measure based on the communalities of previous studies in this domain and derived from large probabilistic samples that approach national representativeness. The superior predictive properties of the authors’ new measure with respect to extraneous variables are another important strength and contribution.

Hofstede's "long-term orientation" (LTO) may be one of the most important dimensions of national culture, as it highlights differences on a continuum from East Asia to Africa and Latin America, strongly associated with differences in educational achievement. However, LTO's structure lacks theoretical coherence. We show that a statistically similar, and theoretically more

There are few large-scale studies that compare how parents socialize children across the globe and the implications of the different types of socialization. To fill this gap, the authors used data from a new study across 52,300 probabilistically selected respondents from 54 countries. They were asked what advice they would give to their children to instill desirable values and traits in them. Aggregated to the national level, the responses yield two main dimensions of national culture. The first (collectivism-individualism) captures differences approximately along the South-North geographic axis of the Earth and is strongly correlated with differences in economic and gender inequality. The second (monumentalism-flexibility) captures cultural differences approximately on the West-East geographic axis of the world and is strongly associated with national differences in educational achievement. Thus, some of the most important national differences worldwide are strongly related to cultural differences in parental ideologies for the socialization of their children, suggesting that culture has objective societal outcomes.

No abstract

Summary Cultural determinants of obesity prevalence have been little studied but could explain significant variations in body mass index (BMI) trajectories among countries. This ecological study quantified longitudinal associations between six dimensions of national culture and mean population BMI over 25 years. National mean male and female BMI data 1990 to 2014 provided dependent variables. National dimensions of culture (from the Hofstede database for up to 87 countries) were independent variables: Individualism, Uncertainty avoidance, Indulgence, Long‐term orientation, Power distance, and Masculinity. Analyses used mixed models for repeated measures for each dimension of national culture with male and female adult BMI trajectories, controlling for confounders. A higher mean BMI was significantly associated with higher Individualism, Uncertainty avoidance, Indulgence, and Masculine orientation and with lower Power distance (males only) and lower Long‐term orientation (males only). Overall, the national cultural dimensions explained 62.4% (males) and 53.5% (females) of the variance in mean BMI among countries. National cultural characteristics, especially Individualism and Uncertainty avoidance, are strongly related to obesity prevalence, explaining over half of the variance among countries. More research and theory development is needed to understand the pathways for these associations so that cultural contexts can be better accounted for in policies, social marketing messages, and community‐based actions for obesity prevention.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to test the replicability of Hofstede’s value-based dimensions – masculinity–femininity (MAS–FEM) and individualism–collectivism (IDV–COLL) – in the field of consumer behavior, and to compare cultural prioritizations with respect to disposable income budgets across the world. Design/methodology/approach The authors asked 51,529 probabilistically selected respondents in 52 countries (50 nationally representative consumer panels and community samples from another two countries) what they would do with their money if they were rich. The questionnaire items targeted Hofstede’s MAS–FEM and IDV–COLL as well as a wider range of options deemed sufficiently meaningful, ethical and moral across the world. Findings The authors obtained two main dimensions. The first contrasts self-enhancing and altruistic choices (status and power-seeking spending vs donating for healthcare) and is conceptually similar to MAS–FEM. However, it is statistically related to Hofstede’s fifth dimension, or monumentalism–flexibility (MON–FLX), not to MAS–FEM. The second dimension contrasts conservative-collectivist choices and modern-hedonistic concerns (donating for religion and sports vs preserving nature and travel abroad for pleasure) and is a variant of COLL–IDV. Research limitations/implications The authors left out various potential consumer choices as they were deemed culturally incomparable or unacceptable in some societies. Nevertheless, the findings paint a sufficiently rich image of worldwide value differences underpinning idealized consumer behavior prioritizations. Practical implications The study could be useful to international marketing and consumer behavior experts. Social implications The study contributes to the understanding of modern cultural differences across the world. Originality/value This is the first large cross-cultural study that reveals differences in values through a novel approach: prioritizations of consumer choices. It enriches the understanding of IDV–COLL and MON–FLX, and, in particular, of the value prioritizations of the East Asian nations. The study provides new evidence that Hofstede’s MAS–FEM is a peculiarity of his IBM database with no societal analogue. Some of the so-called MAS–FEM values are components of MON–FLX, which is statistically unrelated to Hofstede’s MAS–FEM.

There are considerable differences between countries when it comes to road safety performance, as indicated by the number of road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants. These discrepancies are strongly associated with differences in wealth and prosperity, as expected, but are also related to national culture. The overall objective of this exploratory study is to identify relationships between national culture, road safety performance and public support for policy measures. Using the revised version of Hofstede's cultural dimensions, we show the strong correlation between national culture and road safety performance, which exists even after controlling for the national level of wealth as measured by the gross national income. Furthermore, by combining the national cultural dimensions with data on 29 countries from the second stage of ESRA, the E -Survey of Road users' Attitudes, this study demonstrates that culture also affects the level of public support for policy measures related to road safety. Specifically, for many measures, the degree of individualism accounts for a considerable part of the statistical variation in the public support for policy measures across countries—except for those measures for which the support is very high in most countries. Possible explanations are given for the seemingly paradoxical finding that countries which witness high resistance to road safety policy measures have nevertheless managed to achieve better road safety performance.