A Test of the Reproducibility of the Clustering of Cultural Variables

Cross-Cultural Research

2021

Various models of subjective culture (measures of self-reports) have been proposed since Hofstede’s original work but none of them have been validated by showing that they have analogs in objective culture (measures of societal practices). Inspired by Bardi and Schwartz’s discovery that Schwartz’s individual-level circumplex values model has an exact equivalent in a model of behaviors, we develop a test for the purpose of validating models of culture. We apply this test to Minkov’s revised two-dimensional variant of Hofstede’s subjective-culture model, consisting of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) and flexibility-monumentalism (FLX-MON) (formerly “long-term orientation”), as Fog recently found that an analog to this model incorporates and summarizes all major validated models and dimensions of national culture. We analyze national measures of important social practices associated empirically and theoretically with IDV-COLL and FLX-MON: transparency-corruption, gender equality, political freedom, road death tolls, homicide rates, family structures, innovation rates, and educational effort and achievement. These yielded close analogs to IDV-COLL and FLX-MON, with similar factor structures across nations and across the 50 US states, explicable in terms of IDV-COLL, FLX-MON, and life-history strategy (LHS) theories. Thus, subjective culture structures have mirror images in objective culture structures. This provides validation for our test, for the Minkov-Hofstede two-dimensional model of culture, for the use of nations and some sub-national political entities as units of cultural analysis, as well as for IDV-COLL, FLX-MON, and LHS theories.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Goal Hypotheses and Concept Of The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Test of the Revised Minkov-Hofstede Model of Culture: Mirror Images of Subjective and Objective Culture across Nations and the 50 US States

Minkov

Cross-Cultural Research

2021

“…Some studies have compared Schwartz’s and Hofstede’s dimensions (Gouveia & Ros, 2000; Schwartz, 1994; Smith et al, 2002; Steenkamp, 2001) or Schwartz’s and Inglehart’s (Dobewall & Rudnev, 2014; Dobewall & Strack, 2014, Schwartz, 2004) or all three (Basabe & Ros, 2005, Fog, 2021). These studies used mainly an empirical approach, mostly based on correlation analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Merging Hofstede, Schwartz, and Inglehart into a Single System

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

2021

There are various sets of cultural dimensions in the literature. Can they be merged into a single system? While previous studies have mainly compared different dimensions empirically, this article takes a conceptual approach and explains how Hofstede’s, Schwartz’s, and Inglehart’s models can be merged into one system. Instead of looking at dimensions from different sets one by one, this study uses a novel approach: each set of dimensions is viewed as one unit covering a certain space of values, norms, beliefs, attitudes, etc. The results make it possible to arrange three sets of dimensions into one visualized system and confirm several conclusions in the existing literature. Knowing how different models are related to each other allows easier comparisons of the results of studies using different sets of cultural dimensions as explanations of extraneous variables.

“…Minkov (2018) claims that Hofstede's model should be reduced to just two dimensions that replicate well and have strong predictive properties – IDV-COLL and FLX–MON. Recently, Fog (in press) showed that these two dimensions, or variants of them, not only replicate best of all but also best summarize most of the reported important and interesting cultural variation at the national level across all major studies, including those by Hofstede, Inglehart, Welzel, Schwartz and GLOBE. Therefore, in this study we attempt a replication of IDV-COLL, as well as of FLX–MON.…”

Section: A Brief Account Of Hofstede's Model and The Logic Behind Itmentioning

confidence: 94%

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

Minkov

2020

CCSM

PurposeRecent studies exposed serious issues with Hofstede's popular model of culture, especially his uncertainty avoidance (UA) and masculinity-femininity (MAS–FEM) dimensions. However those studies did not focus on work-related issues as in Hofstede’s research.Design/methodology/approachWe followed Hofstede’s approach to his dimensions more closely than anyone before in a large cross-cultural study. We used data from the nationally representative International Social Survey Program (over 50,000 respondents from 47 countries), measuring work goals and work-related stress in a way similar to Hofstede's.FindingsUA and MAS–FEM, as measured and described by Hofstede, did not replicate. They lack internal consistency and the items that target them are not associated with Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM indices. Instead, some of those items follow a very different and sound logic, invalidating Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM theories. Our study provides additional evidence that UA and MAS–FEM are misleading artifacts of Hofstede's IBM database, with no analogues outside IBM. An improved, recently reported version of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) replicated nearly perfectly, solidifying the validity of that dimension of national culture. A revised version of long-term orientation, called flexibility–monumentalism (FLX–MON) also replicated well.Research limitations/implicationsWe discuss lessons for the cross-cultural field, including cross-cultural management, as well as policy-making by national governments, to be drawn from the controversial story of Hofstede's model. We advise a stronger focus on empirical confirmation and replication rather than excessive faith in fascinating, yet unproven theory.Practical implicationsTo avoid further confusion, we advise researchers, consultants and managers to reconsider the use of Hofstede's UA and MAS–FEM and focus on the valid dimensions in the revised Minkov-Hofstede model.Social implicationsA number of national governments recently launched large-scale studies of their national cultures, based on Hofstede's model. The goal of those studies was to involve culture in the design of social and economic development policies. Studies of this kind should be founded on empirically sound models or else they can result in the formulation of flawed policies.Originality/valueThis is the first study of large samples from many nations showing that even when Hofstede's method is followed closely by focusing on work-related issues, UA and MAS–FEM do not emerge from the data, and this is not because of data deficiencies but because the logic of UA and MAS–FEM is demonstrably flawed. Our study also demonstrates new methods for the replication of IDV-COLL and FLX–MON, though without claiming that they are superior to existing ones.