Switching analytical mindsets: A person-centered approach to the analysis of cultural values

Abstract

Traditional value-centered approaches to the analysis of cultural variations have failed to capture group similarities across and beyond national boundaries, partly due to their reliance on variable-centered approaches that examine each cultural value in isolation, thereby ignoring the synergistic effects of cultural values. To fill this gap, we introduce a person-centered approach that allows us to identify subgroups of individuals who share a common configuration, or profile, of cultural values. We apply this approach to a multi-country sample and identify multiple distinct cultural groups within and across countries. We find that while some profiles are unique to a particular country, others cut across countries, representing hitherto unacknowledged patterns of cultural commonalities and differences.

Cultural differences in the measurement of self-curiosity within Mexico: a person-centered and variable-centered study

“…Those findings support the variety of cultural profiles present in Mexico and confirm the importance to evaluate within-country cultural differences (Taras et al, 2016). Moreover, Cooper et al (2020) did not use the dimension of Long/Short Term Orientation to identify latent cultural profiles, so the present study is the first that considers that dimension to enrich the description of the cultural profiles within one country.…”

“…Regarding the person-centered approach, three cultural profiles within the Mexican sample were identified through LPA: consensus-oriented egalitarians were people with average scores on all cultural dimensions, flexible individualists were people that appreciated uncertainty and short-term orientation, and rules-based competitors people showed very high scores in power distance, masculinity, and collectivism. As expected, the profiles were similar to the ones identified by Cooper et al (2020), although the prevalence of the profiles within the Mexican sample was different especially for the consensus-oriented egalitarians' profile, that was more represented in our sample than in Cooper et al (2020), and the rules-based competitors, that was less represented in our sample. Those findings support the variety of cultural profiles present in Mexico and confirm the importance to evaluate within-country cultural differences (Taras et al, 2016).…”

“…This approach uses multiple attributes from each respondent to identify the boundaries that separate one group of individuals with similar cultural attributes from another, without defining the boundaries ex-ante. For instance, Cooper et al (2020) investigated cultural profiles through LPA in 1071 participants from five different states (China, Germany, India, Russia, and the USA) using the Cultural Values Scale (CVSCALE, Yoo et al, 2011) that measure the five dimensions of the Hofstede (2001)'s model of cultural differences: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, and long/short term orientation. Three different profiles were found.…”

“…Regarding the identification of cultural profiles, we expected to find similar profiles to those found in the literature. More specifically, we expected to find at least two profiles: one profile characterized by the "traditional" cultural values, similar to the "rules-based competitors" of Cooper et al (2020) defined by people more collectivist, high in masculinity and avoiding uncertainty; another profile similar to the "flexible individualists" (Cooper et al, 2020), characterized by more individualistic values, and in particular by low power distance, uncertainty avoidance and collectivism and low or moderate levels of masculinity.…”

Criticism Of The Digital Functioning Of The Russian Cultural Industry

“…The current state of crisis in the sphere of culture with the dominance of economic interpretation confirms the urgent need to find adequate tools for studying the entire complex of problems associated with the analysis of the information/digital format of the functioning of the cultural industry (Malshina & Garnov, 2020). One of the important tasks is to clarify the specifics of the digital format of providing cultural services, since the principles of modernity are already in the past and new mechanisms of mass consumption society prevail (Cooper et al, 2020). Modernism is rejected for two equal reasons: first, because of its material reality, and second, because of its inability to transform reality into a digital form.…”