What would people do with their money if they were rich? A search for Hofstede dimensions across 52 countries

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.

The role of subnational cultural value on animosity: the China-South Korea THAAD crisis

“…Third, we are dealing with culture-sensitive products, yet consumer behavior and perceptions can vary across countries for several reasons, including cultural factors. As such, studies on consumer behavior and perceptions in international marketing have compared countries regarding the relevant factors in as many as 18 countries (Tsalikis, Van Solt, & Seaton, 2019) and even 52 countries (Minkov et al, 2019). However, our study context contains only two countries (China and Korea); thus, we need to expand our research to conduct comparisons among various countries.…”

The moderating influence of national culture on female and male entrepreneurs’ social network size and new venture growth

“…GLOBE seeks to address some of the issues regarding simplicity of culture by presenting both cultural values and cultural practices separately (Baskerville, 2003; Kirkman et al , 2006). Moreover, whereas Hofstede captures culture based on individuals’ personal, work-related goals, GLOBE captures individuals’ thoughts on what desirable behaviors and traits people should share (Minkov et al , 2019). In addition, there are criticisms of the survey-response methodology and aggregation methodology used by Hofstede to produce the results, which are addressed through the GLOBE (Javidan, Dorfman, De Luque and House, 2006; Javidan, House, Dorfman, Hanges and de Luque, 2006).…”

A test of Hofstede's model of culture following his own approach

“…The Five-Factor Model of personality (a variant of which is the Big-Five model) also replicates with diverse instruments of various length and content, including the relatively short Big Five Inventory (Schmitt et al , 2007), very short instruments (Soto and John, 2017), and so-called comprehensive single item instruments (Konstabel et al , 2012), all of which are very different in format compared to those in the classic NEO-PI-R instrument, a standard measure of the Five-Factor Model. The latest Big-Five replication across 19 countries by Minkov et al (2019a, b) used yet another novel questionnaire, involving a forced choice from opposites. Thus, when a particular dimension is robust enough, it is discoverable through a variety of item contents and response formats, not necessarily through a set of codified items, with no alternatives.…”