Merging Hofstede, Schwartz, and Inglehart into a Single System

Abstract

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.

Are Different Two-Dimensional Models of Culture Just a Matter of Different Rotations? Evidence From the Analysis Based on the WVS/EVS

“…This is rather in accordance with the two dimensions in the model proposed by Minkov. However, the approach of Kaasa (2021) viewing each set of dimensions as one unit covering the whole space of values, norms, beliefs, and attitudes, offers us a framework in which one can place sets of dimensions that are rotated with respect to each other by whatever angle.…”

Socio-Cultural Values Are Risk Factors for COVID-19-Related Mortality

“…However, inspection of Table 2 suggests that in Inglehart’s (1997) and Inglehart and Welzel’s (2005) classification (that is also based on the WVS), survival-related (rather than self-expression) values have a protective effect against COVID-19-related mortality. While the values related to political participation are not included in their analyses, Kaasa’s (2021) alignment of the WVS values with those developed by Hofstede (1980) and Schwartz (2004) suggests that values related to political participation (i.e., power closeness and egalitarianism) map onto both secular-rational authority (rather than traditional) values and, to some extent, survival-related (rather than self-expression) values. These results thus confirm in a more data-driven analysis that COVID-19-related mortality is reduced in societies with more survival-related values and traditional authorities.…”

“…Using dimensionality reduction techniques thus creates a dilemma between restricting coverage by reducing the number of countries or introducing an analytic bias by choosing predictors the analyst might expect to reflect factors that are chosen a priori. Further, the specific components of a principal component analysis are somewhat arbitrary in that they depend on the specific questions, and sometimes investigators decide to sub-divide components for theoretical reasons (e.g., Kaasa, 2021 ). Similar dilemmas also arise when applying “wrapper” approaches (in Kohavi and John’s (1997) terminology) that evaluate the contributions of individual predictors to the overall fit of a model because they also require all predictors to be available for all countries.…”

South African MNCs’ HRM Systems and Practices at the Subsidiary Level: Insights From Subsidiaries in Nigeria

“…These values were universalism, achievement, benevolence, uncertainty avoidance, stimulation, power, self-direction, conformity, hedonism, tradition and security. Schwartz studied school teachers and college students in fifty-four countries; however, his study was an organisational study despite its focus on appropriate social behaviour (Kaasa, 2021).…”

“…However, the structure and nature of values may be universal, and groups and individuals may differ considerably in their feelings related to the relative importance of the values. That is, groups and individuals may have different value priorities or hierarchies (Kaasa, 2021).…”