Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Volume 2

Theoretical and Methodological Issues

Issue 1

Conceptual Issues in Psychology and Culture

Article 8

12-2011

Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Geert Hofstede

Universities of Maastricht and Tilburg, The Netherlands

, hofstede@bart.nl

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context.

Online

Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2

(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

This Online Readings in Psychology and Culture Article is brought to you for free and open access (provided uses

Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Abstract

!"* )+"$ *)"* )"30 +! '*+ %'$ ' *"/ "%&*"'&* ' &+"'&$ ,$+,)*

'.) "*+& &)+"&+0 -'"& &"-",$"*%'$$+"-"*% *,$"&"+0%"&"&"+0

'& !')+)%)"&++"'&&&,$ &*+)"&++*!'.*+!'&(+,$&)*)!

2')+*+!+()"+&$,(+'"+&'&"+!'%()" %')'%()"& 

,$+,)*)*)!2')+* +!+'$$'.& ,"$+'&"+! )+"$*+)***+!+"%&*"'&*

(&'&+!$-$' ) +"'&"+*)"*+!*"/&+")$0"2)&+"%&*"'&*',&

"&+!'*++$



)*)!"&+'') &"1+"'&$,$+,)*+.)&* "&*+'&,*"'&

."+!-$,"2)&*++!"&"-",$$-$+'&$,*."+!$''#!"&.!++!*+,0

'"%&*"'&*'&+"'&$,$+,)*&+!('*"+"'&'',&+)"*'&+!%%0*+"$$)"& 

Creative Commons License Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0

License.

This article is available in Online Readings in Psychology and Culture: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/

iss1/8

Introduction

Culture has been defined in many ways; this author’s shorthand definition is: "Culture is

the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or

category of people from others". It is always a collective phenomenon, but it can be

connected to different collectives. Within each collective there is a variety of individuals. If

characteristics of individuals are imagined as varying according to some bell curve; the

variation between cultures is the shift of the bell curve when one moves from one society

to the other. Most commonly the term culture is used for tribes or ethnic groups (in

anthropology), for nations (in political science, sociology and management), and for

organizations (in sociology and management). A relatively unexplored field is the culture of

occupations (for instance, of engineers versus accountants, or of academics from different

disciplines). The term can also be applied to the genders, to generations, or to social

classes. However, changing the level of aggregation studied changes the nature of the

concept of ‘culture’. Societal, national and gender cultures, which children acquire from

their earliest youth onwards, are much deeper rooted in the human mind than occupational

cultures acquired at school, or than organizational cultures acquired on the job. The latter

are exchangeable when people take a new job. Societal cultures reside in (often

unconscious) values, in the sense of broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs

over others (Hofstede, 2001, p. 5). Organizational cultures reside rather in (visible and

conscious) practices: the way people perceive what goes on in their organizational

environment.

Classifying Cultures: Conceptual Dimensions

In an article first published in 1952, U.S. anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn (1962) argued

that there should be universal categories of culture:

In principle ... there is a generalized framework that underlies the more apparent

and striking facts of cultural relativity. All cultures constitute so many somewhat

distinct answers to essentially the same questions posed by human biology and

by the generalities of the human situation. ... Every society's patterns for living

must provide approved and sanctioned ways for dealing with such universal

circumstances as the existence of two sexes; the helplessness of infants; the

need for satisfaction of the elementary biological requirements such as food,

warmth, and sex; the presence of individuals of different ages and of differing

physical and other capacities. (pp. 317-18).

Many authors in the second half of the twentieth century have speculated about the nature

of the basic problems of societies that would present distinct dimensions of culture (for a

review see Hofstede, 2001, pp. 29-31). The most common dimension used for ordering

societies is their degree of economic evolution or modernity. A one-dimensional ordering

of societies from traditional to modern fitted well with the nineteenth- and twentieth-century

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

belief in progress. Economic evolution is bound to be reflected in people’s collective

mental programming, but there is no reason why economic and technological evolution

should suppress other cultural variety. There exist dimensions of culture unrelated to

economic evolution.

U.S. anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1976) divided cultures according to their ways of

communicating, into high-context (much of the information is implicit) and low-context

cultures (nearly everything is explicit). In practice this distinction overlaps largely with the

traditional versus modern distinction.

U.S. sociologists Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils (1951, p. 77) suggested that all

human action is determined by five pattern variables, choices between pairs of

alternatives:

1. Affectivity (need gratification) versus affective neutrality (restraint of impulses);

2. Self-orientation versus collectivity-orientation;

3. Universalism (applying general standards) versus particularism (taking particular

relationships into account);

4. Ascription (judging others by who they are) versus achievement (judging them by

what they do);

5. Specificity (limiting relations to others to specific spheres) versus diffuseness (no

prior limitations to nature of relations).

Parsons and Shils (1951) claimed that these choices are present at the individual

(personality) level, at the social system (group or organization) level, and at the cultural

(normative) level. They did not take into account that different variables could operate at

different aggregation levels.

U.S. anthropologists Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck (1961, p. 12) ran a

field study in five geographically close, small communities in the Southwestern United

States: Mormons, Spanish Americans, Texans, Navaho Indians, and Zuni Indians. They

distinguished these communities on the following value orientations:

1. An evaluation of human nature (evil - mixed - good);

2. The relationship of man to the surrounding natural environment (subjugation -

harmony - mastery);

3. The orientation in time (toward past - present - future);

4. The orientation toward activity (being - being in becoming - doing); and

5. Relationships among people (linearity, i.e., hierarchically ordered positions –

collaterality, i.e., group relationships – individualism).

Others have extrapolated Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) classification to all kind of

social comparisons, without concern for their geographic limitations without considering

the effect of levels of aggregation, and without empirical support.

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8

British anthropologist Mary Douglas (1973) proposed a two-dimensional ordering of

ways of looking at the world:

1. ‘Group’ or inclusion - the claim of groups over members, and

2. ‘Grid’ or classification - the degree to which interaction is subject to rules.

Douglas saw these categories as relating to a wide variety of beliefs and social actions:

Views of nature, traveling, spatial arrangements, gardening, cookery, medicine, the

meaning of time, age, history, sickness, and justice. She seemed to imply that these

dimensions are applicable to any level of aggregation.

The one- or more-dimensional classifications above represent subjective reflective

attempts to order a complex reality. Each of them is strongly colored by the subjective

choices of its author(s). They show some overlap, but their lack of clarity about and mixing

of levels of analysis (individual-group-culture) are severe methodological weaknesses.

These weaknesses were avoided in an extensive review article by U.S. sociologist

Alex Inkeles and psychologist Daniel Levinson (1969, first published 1954). The authors

limited themselves to culture at the level of nations, and they summarized all available

sociological and anthropological studies dealing with what was then called national

character, which they interpreted as a kind of modal (most common) personality type in a

national society. What I have labelled dimensions they called standard analytic issues.

From their survey of the literature Inkeles and Levinson (1969) distilled three standard

analytic issues that met these criteria:

1. Relation to authority;

2. Conception of self, including the individual's concepts of masculinity and femininity;

3. Primary dilemmas or conflicts, and ways of dealing with them, including the control

of aggression and the expression versus inhibition of affect.

As will be shown below, Inkeles and Levinson's (1969) standard analytic issues were

empirically supported in a study by this author more than 20 years later.

Empirical Approaches and the Hofstede Dimensions

In 1949 U.S. psychologist Raymond Cattell published an application of the new statistical

technique of factor analysis to the comparison of nations. Cattell had earlier used factor

analysis for studying aspects of intelligence from test scores of individual students. This

time he took a matrix of nation-level variables for a large number of countries, borrowing

from geography, demographics, history, politics, economics, sociology, law, religion and

medicine. The resulting factors were difficult to interpret, except for the important role of

economic development. Replications of his method by others produced trivial results (for a

review see Hofstede, 2001, pp. 32-33). More meaningful were applications to restricted

facets of societies. U.S. political scientists Phillip Gregg and Arthur Banks (1965) studied

aspects of political systems; U.S. economists Irma Adelman and Cynthia Taft Morris

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

(1967) studied factors influencing the development of poor countries, and Irish

psychologist Richard Lynn (1971; Lynn & Hampson, 1975) studied aspects of mental

health.

In the 1970s this author – more or less by accident – got access to a large survey

database about values and related sentiments of people in over 50 countries around the

world (Hofstede, 1980). These people worked in the local subsidiaries of one large

multinational corporation: IBM. Most parts of the organization had been surveyed twice

over a four-year interval, and the database contained more than 100,000 questionnaires.

Initial analyses of the database at the level of individual respondents proved confusing, but

a breakthrough occurred when the focus was directed at correlations between mean

scores of survey items at the level of countries. Patterns of correlation at the country level

could be strikingly different from what was found at the individual level, and needed an

entirely different interpretation. One of the weaknesses of much cross-cultural research is

not recognizing the difference between analysis at the societal level and at the individual

level; this amounts to confusing anthropology and psychology. From 180 studies using my

work reviewed by Kirkman, Lowe, and Gibson (2006), more than half failed to distinguish

between societal culture level and individual level differences, which led to numerous

errors of interpretation and application.

My hunch that the IBM data might have implications beyond this particular

corporation was supported when I got the opportunity to administer a number of the same

questions to nearly 400 management trainees from some 30 countries in an international

program unrelated to IBM. Their mean scores by country correlated significantly with the

country scores obtained from the IBM database. So it seemed that employees of this

multinational enterprises – a very special kind of people – could serve for identifying

differences in national value systems. The reason is that from one country to another they

represented almost perfectly matched samples: they were similar in all respects except

nationality, which made the effect of national differences in their answers stand out

unusually clearly.

Encouraged by the results of the country-level correlation analysis I then tried

country-level factor analysis. The latter was similar to the approach used earlier by Cattell

and others, except that now the variables in the matrix were not indices for the country as

a whole, but mean scores and sometimes percentages of survey answers collected from

individuals in those countries. Analyses of data at higher levels of aggregation are called

ecological. Ecological factor analysis differs from the factor analysis of individual scores in

that a usual caution no longer applies: the number of cases does not need to be (much)

larger than the number of variables. The stability of the results of an ecological factor

analysis does not depend on the number of cases, but on the number of individuals whose

scores were aggregated into these cases. Ecological factor analysis may even be

performed on matrices with fewer cases than variables.

Factor analyzing a matrix of 32 values questions for initially 40 countries, I found

these values to cluster very differently from what was found at the individual level. The

new factors revealed common problems with which IBM employees in all these societies

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8

had to cope, but for which their upbringing in their country presented its own profile of

solutions. These problems were:

1. Dependence on superiors;

2. Need for rules and predictability, also associated with nervous stress;

3. The balance between individual goals and dependence on the company;

4. The balance between ego values (like the need for money and careers) and social

values (like cooperation and a good living environment); the former were more

frequently chosen by men, the latter by women, but there were also country

differences.

These empirical results were strikingly similar to the standard analytical issues described

in Inkeles and Levinson’s 1969 article. Dependence on superiors relates to the first, need

for predictability to the third, the balance between the individual and the company to the

conception of self, and the balance between ego and social values to concepts of

masculinity and femininity, which were also classified under the second standard analytic

issue.

The four basic problem areas defined by Inkeles and Levinson (1969) and

empirically supported in the IBM data represent dimensions of national cultures. A

dimension is an aspect of a culture that can be measured relative to other cultures. The

four dimensions formed the basis for my book Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede, 1980).

The main message of the 1980 book was that scores on the dimensions correlated

significantly with conceptually related external data. Thus Power Distance scores

correlated with a dimension from Gregg and Banks’ (1965) analysis of political systems

and also with a dimension from Adelman and Morris’ (1967) study of economic

development; Uncertainty Avoidance correlated with a dimension from Lynn and

Hampson’s (1975) study of mental health; Individualism correlated strongly with national

wealth (Gross National Product per capita) and Femininity with the percentage of national

income spent on development aid. The number of external validations kept expanding, and

the second edition of Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede, 2001, Appendix 6, pp. 503-520)

lists more than 400 significant correlations between the IBM-based scores and results of

other studies. Recent validations show no loss of validity, indicating that the country

differences these dimensions describe are, indeed, basic and enduring.

In the 1980s, on the basis of research by Canadian psychologist Michael Harris

Bond centered in the Far East, a fifth dimension ‘Long-Term versus Short-Term

Orientation’ was added (Hofstede & Bond, 1988; see also Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede,

2001).

In the 2000s, research by Bulgarian scholar Michael Minkov using data from the

World Values Survey (Minkov, 2007) allowed a new calculation of the fifth, and the

addition of a sixth dimension (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov, 2010). The six dimensions are

labelled:

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

1. Power Distance, related to the different solutions to the basic problem of human

inequality;

2. Uncertainty Avoidance, related to the level of stress in a society in the face of an

unknown future;

3. Individualism versus Collectivism, related to the integration of individuals into

primary groups;

4. Masculinity versus Femininity, related to the division of emotional roles between

women and men;

5. Long Term versus Short Term Orientation, related to the choice of focus for

people's efforts: the future or the present and past.

6. Indulgence versus Restraint, related to the gratification versus control of basic

human desires related to enjoying life.

Each country has been positioned relative to other countries through a score on each

dimension. The dimensions are statistically distinct and do occur in all possible

combinations, although some combinations are more frequent than others.

After the initial confirmation of the country differences in IBM in data from

management trainees elsewhere, the Hofstede dimensions and country scores were

validated through replications by others, using the same or similar questions with other

cross-national populations. Between 1990 and 2002 six major replications (14 or more

countries) used populations of country elites, employees and managers of other

corporations and organizations, airline pilots, consumers and civil servants (see Hofstede

et al., 2010, p. 35).

In correlating the dimensions with other data, the influence of national wealth (Gross

National Product per capita) should always be taken into account. Two of the dimensions,

Individualism and small Power Distance, are significantly correlated with wealth. This

means that all wealth-related phenomena tend to correlate with both these dimensions.

Differences in national wealth can be considered a more parsimonious explanation of

these other phenomena than differences in culture. In correlating with the culture

dimensions, it is therefore advisable to always include the wealth variable. After controlling

for national wealth correlations with culture usually disappear.

Of particular interest is a link that was found between culture according to the

Hofstede dimensions and personality dimensions according to the empirically based Big

Five personality test (Costa & McCrae, 1992). After this test had been used in over 30

countries, significant correlations were found between country norms on the five

personality dimensions (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience,

Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) and national culture dimension scores. For

example, 55% of country differences on Neuroticism can be explained by a combination of

Uncertainty Avoidance and Masculinity, and 39% of country differences on Extraversion by

Individualism alone (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). So culture and personality are linked but

the link is statistical; there is a wide variety of individual personalities within each national

culture, and national culture scores should not be used for stereotyping individuals.

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8

Validating the dimensions is of course not only and not even mainly a quantitative

issue. Equally important is the qualitative interpretation of what differences on the

dimensions mean for each of the societies studied, which calls for an emic approach to

each society, supporting the etic of the dimensional data.

The Hofstede Dimensions in a nutshell

In this section I will summarize the content of each dimension opposing cultures with

low and high scores. These oppositions are based on correlations with studies by others,

and because the relationship is statistical, not every line applies equally strongly to every

country.

Power Distance

Power Distance has been defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of

organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed

unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from

above. It suggests that a society's level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much

as by the leaders. Power and inequality, of course, are extremely fundamental facts of any

society. All societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others.

Table 1

Ten Differences Between Small- and Large- Power Distance Societies

Small Power Distance

Large Power Distance

Use of power should be legitimate and is

subject to criteria of good and evil

Power is a basic fact of society antedating good or

evil: its legitimacy is irrelevant

Parents treat children as equals

Parents teach children obedience

Older people are neither respected nor feared

Older people are both respected and feared

Student-centered education

Teacher-centered education

Hierarchy means inequality of roles,

established for convenience

Hierarchy means existential inequality

Subordinates expect to be consulted

Subordinates expect to be told what to do

Pluralist governments based on majority vote

and changed peacefully

Autocratic governments based on co-optation and

changed by revolution

Corruption rare; scandals end political careers

Corruption frequent; scandals are covered up

Income distribution in society rather even

Income distribution in society very uneven

Religions stressing equality of believers

Religions with a hierarchy of priests

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Table 1 lists a selection of differences between national societies that validation research

showed to be associated with the Power Distance dimension. For a more complete review

the reader is referred to Hofstede (2001) and Hofstede et al. (2010). The statements refer

to extremes; actual situations may be found anywhere in between the extremes, and the

association of a statement with a dimension is always statistical, never absolute.

In Hofstede et al. (2010) Power Distance Index scores are listed for 76 countries;

they tend to be higher for East European, Latin, Asian and African countries and lower for

Germanic and English-speaking Western countries.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty Avoidance is not the same as risk avoidance; it deals with a society's tolerance

for ambiguity. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either

uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel,

unknown, surprising, and different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize

the possibility of such situations by strict behavioral codes, laws and rules, disapproval of

deviant opinions, and a belief in absolute Truth; 'there can only be one Truth and we have

it'.

Table 2

Ten Differences Between Weak- and Strong- Uncertainty Avoidance Societies

Weak Uncertainty Avoidance

Strong Uncertainty Avoidance

The uncertainty inherent in life is accepted and

each day is taken as it comes

The uncertainty inherent in life is felt as a

continuous threat that must be fought

Ease, lower stress, self-control, low anxiety

Higher stress, emotionality, anxiety, neuroticism

Higher scores on subjective health and well-

being

Lower scores on subjective health and well-being

Tolerance of deviant persons and ideas: what is

different is curious

Intolerance of deviant persons and ideas: what is

different is dangerous

Comfortable with ambiguity and chaos

Need for clarity and structure

Teachers may say ‘I don’t know’

Teachers supposed to have all the answers

Changing jobs no problem

Staying in jobs even if disliked

Dislike of rules - written or unwritten

Emotional need for rules – even if not obeyed

In politics, citizens feel and are seen as

competent towards authorities

In politics, citizens feel and are seen as

incompetent towards authorities

In religion, philosophy and science: relativism

and empiricism

In religion, philosophy and science: belief in

ultimate truths and grand theories

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8

Research has shown that people in uncertainty avoiding countries are also more

emotional, and motivated by inner nervous energy. The opposite type, uncertainty

accepting cultures, are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are used to; they

try to have fewer rules, and on the philosophical and religious level they are empiricist,

relativist and allow different currents to flow side by side. People within these cultures are

more phlegmatic and contemplative, and not expected by their environment to express

emotions. Table 2 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation research

showed to be associated with the Uncertainty Avoidance dimension.

In Hofstede et al. (2010) Uncertainty Avoidance Index scores are listed for 76

countries; they tend to be higher in East and Central European countries, in Latin

countries, in Japan and in German speaking countries, lower in English speaking, Nordic

and Chinese culture countries.

Individualism

Individualism on the one side versus its opposite, Collectivism, as a societal, not an

individual characteristic, is the degree to which people in a society are integrated into

groups. On the individualist side we find cultures in which the ties between individuals are

loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the

collectivist side we find cultures in which people from birth onwards are integrated into

strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents)

that continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty, and oppose other in-

groups. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one,

regarding all societies in the world. Table 3 lists a selection of differences between

societies that validation research showed to be associated with this dimension.

Table 3

Ten Differences Between Collectivist and Individualist Societies

Individualism

Collectivism

Everyone is supposed to take care of him- or

herself and his or her immediate family only

People are born into extended families or clans

which protect them in exchange for loyalty

"I" – consciousness

"We" –consciousness

Right of privacy

Stress on belonging

Speaking one's mind is healthy

Harmony should always be maintained

Others classified as individuals

Others classified as in-group or out-group

Personal opinion expected: one person one vote

Opinions and votes predetermined by in-group

Transgression of norms leads to guilt feelings

Transgression of norms leads to shame feelings

Languages in which the word "I" is indispensable

Languages in which the word "I" is avoided

Purpose of education is learning how to learn

Purpose of education is learning how to do

Task prevails over relationship

Relationship prevails over task

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

In Hofstede et al. (2010) Individualism Index scores are listed for 76 countries;

Individualism tends to prevail in developed and Western countries, while collectivism

prevails in less developed and Eastern countries; Japan takes a middle position on this

dimension.

Masculinity – Femininity

Masculinity versus its opposite, Femininity, again as a societal, not as an individual

characteristic, refers to the distribution of values between the genders which is another

fundamental issue for any society, to which a range of solutions can be found. The IBM

studies revealed that (a) women's values differ less among societies than men's values;

(b) men's values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and

competitive and maximally different from women's values on the one side, to modest and

caring and similar to women's values on the other. The assertive pole has been called

'masculine' and the modest, caring pole 'feminine'. The women in feminine countries have

the same modest, caring values as the men; in the masculine countries they are

somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men, so that these countries

show a gap between men's values and women's values. In masculine cultures there is

often a taboo around this dimension (Hofstede et al., 1998).

Table 4

Ten Differences Between Feminine and Masculine Societies

Femininity

Masculinity

Minimum emotional and social role differentiation

between the genders

Maximum emotional and social role differentiation

between the genders

Men and women should be modest and caring

Men should be and women may be assertive and

ambitious

Balance between family and work

Work prevails over family

Sympathy for the weak

Admiration for the strong

Both fathers and mothers deal with facts and

feelings

Fathers deal with facts, mothers with feelings

Both boys and girls may cry but neither should

fight

Girls cry, boys don’t; boys should fight back, girls

shouldn’t fight

Mothers decide on number of children

Fathers decide on family size

Many women in elected political positions

Few women in elected political positions

Religion focuses on fellow human beings

Religion focuses on God or gods

Matter-of-fact attitudes about sexuality; sex is a

way of relating

Moralistic attitudes about sexuality; sex is a way

of performing

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8

Taboos are based on deeply rooted values; this taboo shows that the

Masculinity/Femininity dimension in some societies touches basic and often unconscious

values, too painful to be explicitly discussed. In fact the taboo validates the importance of

the dimension. Table 4 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation

research showed to be associated with this dimension.

In Hofstede et al. (2010) Masculinity versus Femininity Index scores are presented

for 76 countries; Masculinity is high in Japan, in German speaking countries, and in some

Latin countries like Italy and Mexico; it is moderately high in English speaking Western

countries; it is low in Nordic countries and in the Netherlands and moderately low in some

Latin and Asian countries like France, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Korea and Thailand.

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation

This dimension was first identified in a survey among students in 23 countries around the

world, using a questionnaire designed by Chinese scholars (Chinese Culture Connection,

1987). As all countries with a history of Confucianism scored near one pole which could be

associated with hard work, the study’s first author Michael Harris Bond labeled the

dimension Confucian Work Dynamism. The dimension turned out to be strongly correlated

with recent economic growth. As none of the four IBM dimensions was linked to economic

growth, I obtained Bond’s permission to add his dimension as a fifth to my four (Hofstede

& Bond, 1988). Because it had been identified in a study comparing students from 23

countries, most of whom had never heard of Confucius, I re-named it Long- Term versus

Short-Term Orientation; the long-term pole corresponds to Bond’s Confucian Work

Dynamism. Values found at this pole were perseverance, thrift, ordering relationships by

status, and having a sense of shame; values at the opposite, short term pole were

reciprocating social obligations, respect for tradition, protecting one's 'face', and personal

steadiness and stability. The positively rated values of this dimension were already present

in the teachings of Confucius from around 500 BC. There was much more in Confucius’

teachings so Long-Term Orientation is not Confucianism per se, but it is still present in

countries with a Confucian heritage. In my book for a student readership Cultures and

Organizations: Software of the Mind (Hofstede, 1991) the fifth dimension was first

integrated into my model. It was more extensively analyzed in the second edition of

Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede, 2001) and in the new edition of Cultures and

Organizations: Software of the Mind, for which my eldest son Gert Jan Hofstede joined me

as a co-author (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

My initial cross-cultural data collected around 1970 by the IBM corporation among its

employees in more than 50 countries worldwide represented probably the largest

matched-sample cross-national database available anywhere at that time. Bond’s Chinese

Value Survey showed the power of adding results from other surveys; unfortunately, it

covered only 23 countries, and attempts to extend it to other populations were small-scale

and hardly reliable.

In the past quarter century the volume of available cross-cultural data on self-scored

values and related issues has increased enormously. If I had to start my research now, I

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

would select the best elements from all these new databases. My prime choice would be

the World Values Survey. In the early 1980s departments of Divinity at six European

Universities, concerned with a loss of Christian faith, jointly surveyed the values of their

countries’ populations through public opinion survey methods. In the following years their

European Values Survey expanded and changed focus: in the hands of U.S. sociologist

Ronald Inglehart it grew into a periodic World Values Survey (WVS). Subsequent data

collection rounds took place with 10-year intervals; as this is written, a fourth round is in

process. The survey now covers more than 100 countries worldwide with a questionnaire

including more than 360 forced-choice items. Areas covered are ecology, economy,

education, emotions, family, gender and sexuality, government and politics, health,

happiness, leisure and friends, morality, religion, society and nation, and work. The entire

WVS data bank, including previous rounds and down to individual respondent scores, is

freely accessible on the Web (www.worldvaluessurvey.org). So far it has remained under-

used; potential users tend to drown in its huge volume of information.

Michael Minkov, a Bulgarian linguist and sociologist whom I had met on the e-mail at

the turn of the millennium, took up the challenge of exploring the riches of the WVS. In

2007 he published a book with a Bulgarian publisher, in which he described three new

cross-national value dimensions extracted from recent WVS data, which he labeled

Exclusionism versus Universalism, Indulgence versus Restraint and Monumentalism

versus Flexumility (the latter a combination of flexibility and humility). Exclusionism versus

Universalism was strongly correlated with Collectivism/Individualism and could be

considered an elaboration of aspects of it. The other two dimensions were new, although

Monumentalism versus Flexumility was moderately but significantly correlated with Short

Term/Long Term Orientation.

Minkov’s findings initially inspired the issuing of a new, 2008 version of the Values

Survey Module, a set of questions available to researchers who wish to replicate my

research into national culture differences. Earlier versions were issued in 1982 (VSM82)

and 1994 (VSM94). Next to the established five Hofstede dimensions, the VSM08 included

on an experimental basis Minkov’s dimensions Indulgence versus Restraint and

Monumentalism versus Flexumility (which I re-baptized Self-Effacement). The Values

Survey Module (VSM) can be downloaded from www.geerthofstede.nl. Aspiring users

should carefully study the accompanying Manual before they decide to collect their own

data. In most cases, the use of available results of already existing quality research is to

be preferred above amateur replications.

The next step in our cooperation with Minkov was that Gert Jan Hofstede and I

invited him to become a co-author for the third edition of Cultures and Organizations:

Software of the Mind (Hofstede et al., 2010). Minkov’s Exclusionism versus Universalism

was integrated into the Individualism/Collectivism chapter. By combining elements from his

Monumentalism versus Flexumility dimension with additional WVS items, Minkov

succeeded in converting into a new version of Long- versus Short-Term Orientation, now

available for 93 countries and regions. Indulgence versus Restraint became an entirely

new dimension that will be described below.

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8

Table 5 lists a selection of differences between societies that validation research

showed to be associated with the old and new version of the Long- versus Short-Term

Orientation dimension. In our 2010 book, dimension scores have been re-calculated

including Minkov’s analysis of recent World Values Survey data.

Long-term oriented are East Asian countries, followed by Eastern- and Central Europe. A

medium term orientation is found in South- and North-European and South Asian

countries. Short-term oriented are U.S.A. and Australia, Latin American, African and

Muslim countries.

Table 5

Ten Differences Between Short- and Long-Term-Oriented Societies

Short-Term Orientation

Long-Term Orientation

Most important events in life occurred in the past or

take place now

Most important events in life will occur in the

future

Personal steadiness and stability: a good person is

always the same

A good person adapts to the circumstances

There are universal guidelines about what is good

and evil

What is good and evil depends upon the

circumstances

Traditions are sacrosanct

Traditions are adaptable to changed

circumstances

Family life guided by imperatives

Family life guided by shared tasks

Supposed to be proud of one’s country

Trying to learn from other countries

Service to others is an important goal

Thrift and perseverance are important goals

Social spending and consumption

Large savings quote, funds available for

investment

Students attribute success and failure to luck

Students attribute success to effort and failure

to lack of effort

Slow or no economic growth of poor countries

Fast economic growth of countries up till a

level of prosperity

Indulgence versus Restraint

The sixth and new dimension, added in our 2010 book, uses Minkov’s label Indulgence

versus Restraint. It was also based on recent World Values Survey items and is more or

less complementary to Long-versus Short-Term Orientation; in fact it is weakly negatively

correlated with it. It focuses on aspects not covered by the other five dimensions, but

known from literature on “happiness research”. Indulgence stands for a society that allows

relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and

having fun. Restraint stands for a society that controls gratification of needs and regulates

it by means of strict social norms. Scores on this dimension are also available for 93

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

countries and regions. Table 6 lists a selection of differences between societies that

validation research showed to be associated with this dimension.

Indulgence tends to prevail in South and North America, in Western Europe and in

parts of Sub-Sahara Africa. Restraint prevails in Eastern Europe, in Asia and in the Muslim

world. Mediterranean Europe takes a middle position on this dimension.

Table 6

Ten Differences between Indulgent and Restrained Societies

Indulgence

Restrained

Higher percentage of people declaring

themselves very happy

Fewer very happy people

A perception of personal life control

A perception of helplessness: what happens to me

is not my own doing

Freedom of speech seen as important

Freedom of speech is not a primary concern

Higher importance of leisure

Lower importance of leisure

More likely to remember positive emotions

Less likely to remember positive emotions

In countries with educated populations, higher

birthrates

In countries with educated populations, lower

birthrates

More people actively involved in sports

Fewer people actively involved in sports

In countries with enough food, higher

percentages of obese people

In countries with enough food, fewer obese people

In wealthy countries, lenient sexual norms

In wealthy countries, stricter sexual norms

Maintaining order in the nation is not given a

high priority

Higher number of police officers per 100,000

population

Other Applications of the Dimensional Paradigm

When Culture’s Consequences appeared in 1980, it represented a new paradigm in social

science research: analyzing survey-based values data at the national level and quantifying

differences between national cultures by positions on these dimensions. Like other new

paradigms, it initially met with rejection, criticism and ridicule next to enthusiasm (Kuhn,

1970). By the 1990s the paradigm had been taken over by many others, and discussions

shifted to the content and number of dimensions. The paradigm inspired a number of other

studies into dimensions of national cultures.

Many projects further explored the dimension of individualism versus collectivism

(e.g. Kim et al., 1994; Hofstede, 2001, ch. 5; Triandis, 1995). From all the Hofstede

dimensions, this one met with the most positive reactions among psychologists, especially

in the U.S.A. which happened to be the highest scoring country on it.

Individualism/Collectivism scores were strongly correlated with national wealth which led

some people to the conclusion that promoting individualism in other cultures would

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8

contribute to their economic development. In fact, data show that the causality is most

probably reversed: wealth tends to lead to individualism (Hofstede, 2001, p. 253). The

individualism in U.S. culture also led people to studying it at the individual level (comparing

one person to another), not at the level of societies. In this case it is no longer a dimension

of culture but an aspect of personality. Also there is no more reason why individualism and

collectivism need to be opposite; they should rather be considered separate features of

personality. An extensive review of studies of individualism at the individual level was

published by Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier (2002). Comparing these studies across

societies they found a different ranking of countries from the Hofstede studies; but

Schimmack, Oishi and Diener (2005) proved this was due to a methodological error:

Oyserman et al. (2002) forgot to control for acquiescence (response set), and the

acquiescence in their data was significantly negatively correlated with the object of their

study which made their results random.

The cultural focus on the Individualism versus Collectivism dimension led Triandis

(1995) to splitting it into horizontal and vertical individualism. This split overlooks the fact

that the Hofstede dimension of large versus small Power Distance already covered the

horizontal/vertical aspect quite satisfactorily. From my point of view the horizontal/ vertical

distinction for Ind/Col as a dimension of culture is redundant. It may be useful at the

individual level, but this is for others to decide.

Like individualism and collectivism, the terms masculinity and femininity have also

been used for describing values at the individual level. Earlier studies by U.S. psychologist

Sandra Bem (1974) showed already that in this case masculinity and femininity should

again rather be treated as separate aspects than as opposite poles.

An important alternative application of the dimensional paradigm was developed by

the Israeli psychologist Shalom Schwartz. Borrowing mainly from the work of U.S.

psychologist Milton Rokeach (1972, 1973) who studied values of U.S. individuals,

Schwartz composed a list of 56 values. Through a network of colleagues he collected

scores from samples of elementary school teachers and of college students in over 50

countries. (Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Respondents scored the importance

of each value “as a guiding principle in my life”. Schwartz at first assumed the same

dimensions would apply to individuals and to countries, but his data showed he needed

different classifications at different levels. At the country level he distinguished seven

dimensions: Conservatism (later rebaptized “Embeddedness”), Hierarchy, Mastery,

Affective autonomy, Intellectual autonomy, Egalitarianism and Harmony. Country scores

for teachers published by Schwartz in 1994 were significantly correlated with the IBM

scores for Individualism, Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance (Hofstede, 2001, p. 265).

Another large scale application was the GLOBE (Global Leadership and

Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness) project, conceived by US management scholar

Robert J. House in 1991. At first House focused on leadership, but soon the study

branched out into other aspects of national and organizational cultures. In the period 1994-

1997 some 170 voluntary collaborators collected data from about 17,000 managers in

nearly 1,000 local (non-multinational) organizations belonging to one of three industries:

food processing, financial services, and telecommunication services, in some 60 societies

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

throughout the world. In the preface to the book describing the project (House et al., 2004),

House writes "We have a very adequate dataset to replicate Hofstede’s (1980) landmark

study and extend that study to test hypotheses relevant to relationships among societal-

level variables, organizational practices, and leader attributes and behavior".

For conceptual reasons GLOBE expanded the five Hofstede dimensions to nine.

They maintained the labels Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance (but not

necessarily their meaning). They split Collectivism into Institutional Collectivism and In-

Group Collectivism, and Masculinity-Femininity into Assertiveness and Gender

Egalitarianism. Long Term Orientation became Future Orientation. They added two more

dimensions: Humane Orientation and Performance Orientation. The nine dimensions were

covered by 78 survey questions, half of them asking respondents to describe their culture

(‘as is’) and the other half to judge it (‘should be’). GLOBE thus produced 9 x 2 = 18 culture

scores for each country: nine dimensions ‘as is’ and nine dimensions ‘should be’.

In an evaluation of the GLOBE project (Hofstede, 2006), I re-factor analyzed the

country scores on GLOBE’s 18 dimensions. Five meta-factors emerged, of which the

strongest, grouping seven of the 18 measures, was highly significantly correlated with

GNP per capita and next with the Hofstede Power Distance dimension. Three more meta-

factors were significantly correlated with respectively the Hofstede Uncertainty Avoidance,

Individualism and Long Term Orientation dimensions. The GLOBE questionnaire

contained very few items covering Masculinity in the Hofstede sense, but whatever there

was belonged to the fifth meta-factor. The results show that in spite of a very different

approach, the massive body of GLOBE data still reflected the structure of the original

Hofstede model. The GLOBE research has provoked an extensive debate in the literature,

but I have seen few applications relevant for practical use by cross-cultural practitioners

(Hofstede, 2010). Minkov and Blagoev (2011) have tried to validate each of GLOBE’s 18

dimensions by testing their nomological networks (correlation patterns with variables from

other sources). The largest number of GLOBE’s mutually correlated dimensions can be

considered useful as facets of Hofstede’s Individualism/Collectivism; some have enriched

insights into Hofstede’s Power Distance dimension, and GLOBE’s Assertiveness “should

be” provides some new elements. GLOBE’s Humane Orientation and Performance

Orientation, both “as is” and “should be” cannot be meaningfully validated at all.

An author sometimes cited as having researched dimensions of national culture is

the Dutch management consultant Fons Trompenaars (1993). He distinguished seven

conceptual dimensions, the first five borrowed from Parsons and Shils (1951) and the last

two from Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) which he applied to the level of nations (see

earlier in this article). Trompenaars collected a database of survey items related to these

dimensions, but in the only statistical analysis of his data published so far, applying

Multidimensional Scaling to some 9,000 questionnaires, only two interpretable factors

emerged, both correlated with Hofstede’s Individualism, one of these also with Power

Distance (Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996; Smith, Trompenaars, & Dugan, 1995).

The only country scores that could be based on Trompenaars’ data refer to these two

flavors of individualism (Smith, Peterson, & Schwartz, 2002). Trompenaars’ claim to seven

dimensions therefore lacks empirical support.

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8

The World Values Survey has been described above. Although the search for

dimensions was not a primary purpose of this study, WVS director Ronald Inglehart in an

overall statistical analysis found two key country-level factors which he called: 'Well-being

versus survival' and 'Secular-rational versus traditional authority' (Inglehart, 1997, pp. 81-

98). Well-being versus survival correlated with a combination of Individualism and

Masculinity; Secular-rational versus traditional authority negatively with Power Distance.

Michael Minkov issued an extended and updated version of his 2007 book in a new

volume Cultural Differences in a Globalizing World (Minkov, 2011). For the dimensions

Exclusionism versus Universalism and Monumentalism versus Flexumility, country scores

have been re-calculated from partly different sources, for 86 countries for exclusionism

and for 43 countries for monumentalism. Indulgence versus Restraint has been reversed

and renamed Industry versus Indulgence; scores for 43 countries have been based on a

slightly different choice of WVS items. The old and new versions of these three dimensions

are still strongly correlated, in the case of Indulgence obviously negatively.

A unique feature of the new book is the addition of a dimension not based on survey

questions but on a statistically strong cluster of national statistics: murder rates, HIV

(AIDS) rates, adolescent fertility rates and low average IQ (Intelligence Quotient,

explainable from low education levels). This can be used for validation of dimensions

based on survey items. Minkov called it Hypometropia versus Prudence; hypometropia is a

medical term for short-sightedness, which he borrowed to avoid an a priori depreciating

term. He calculated hypometropia scores for 80 countries. It correlates significantly with

Minkov’s Exclusionism and Monumentalism. From the six dimensions in Hofstede et al.

(2010) only Individualism correlates significantly negatively with hypometropia, across 55

overlapping countries.

Dimensions of Organizational Cultures

The dimensional paradigm can be applied at other than the national level as well, in

particular at the organizational and occupational levels (Helmreich & Merritt, 1998). A

research project similar to the IBM studies but focusing on organization rather than

national differences was carried out by this author and a team of collaborators in the 1980s

(Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohavy, & Sanders, 1990). Qualitative and quantitative data were

collected in twenty work organizations or parts of organizations in the Netherlands and

Denmark. The units studied varied from a toy manufacturing company to two municipal

police corps. The study consisted of three phases: open-ended interviews with a selection

of informants, forced-choice questionnaires with all, or random samples of, employees,

and collecting measurable characteristics at the organization level. The questionnaires

included the items used for calculating national culture dimensions in the IBM cross-

national survey, but added a large number of questions collected by the 18 interviewers in

the interview phase. This study found large differences among units in perceptions of daily

practices but only modest differences in values, beyond those due to such basic facts as

nationality, education, gender and age group.

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Six independent dimensions, resembling distinctions known from organization

sociology, were identified that describe the larger part of the variety in organization

practices. These six dimensions can be used as a framework to describe organization

cultures, but their research base in twenty units from two countries is too narrow to

consider them as universally valid and sufficient. For describing organization cultures in

other countries and/or in other types of organizations, additional dimensions may be

necessary or some of the six may be less useful. The six dimensions found in our research

were:

1. Process-oriented versus results-oriented

Process-oriented cultures are dominated by technical and bureaucratic routines, results-

oriented by a common concern for outcomes. This dimension was associated with the

culture's degree of homogeneity: in results-oriented units, everybody perceived their

practices in about the same way; in process-oriented units, there were vast differences in

perception among different levels and parts of the unit. The degree of homogeneity of a

culture is a measure of its 'strength': the study confirmed that strong cultures are more

results- oriented than weak ones, and vice versa (Peters & Waterman, 1982).

2. Job-oriented versus employee-oriented

The former assume responsibility for the employees' job performance only, and nothing

more; employee-oriented cultures assume a broad responsibility for their members' well-

being. At the level of individual managers, the distinction between job orientation and

employee orientation has been popularized by Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid

(1964). The Hofstede et al. study (1990) shows that job versus employee orientation is

part of a culture and not (only) a choice for an individual manager. A unit's position on this

dimension seems to be largely the result of historical factors, like the philosophy of its

founder(s) and the presence or absence in its recent history of economic crises with

collective layoffs.

3. Professional versus parochial

In the former, the (usually highly educated) members identify primarily with their

profession; in the latter, the members derive their identity from the organization for which

they work. Sociology has long known this dimension as 'local' versus 'cosmopolitan', the

contrast between an internal and an external frame of reference (Merton, 1949).

4. Open systems versus closed systems

This dimension refers to the common style of internal and external communication, and to

the ease with which outsiders and newcomers are admitted. This is the only one of the six

dimensions for which a systematic difference was found between Danish and Dutch units.

It seems that organizational openness is a societal characteristic of Denmark more than of

the Netherlands. This shows that organization cultures also contain elements from national

culture differences.

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8

5. Tight versus loose control

This dimension deals with the degree of formality and punctuality within the organization; it

is partly a function of the unit's technology: banks and pharmaceutical companies can be

expected to show tight control, research laboratories and advertising agencies loose

control; but even with the same technology some units may still be tighter or looser than

others.

6. Pragmatic versus normative

The last dimension describes the prevailing way (flexible or rigid) of dealing with the

environment, in particular with customers. Units selling services are likely to be found

towards the pragmatic (flexible) side, units involved in the application of laws and rules

towards the normative (rigid) side. This dimension measures the degree of 'customer

orientation', which is a highly popular topic in the marketing literature.

The research grounding of these dimensions is documented extensively in Hofstede et al.

(1990). Applications and implications can be found in Hofstede et al. (2010, ch. 10).

Dimensionality of Cultures in the Future

The fact that the world around us is changing does not need to affect the usefulness of the

dimensional paradigm; on the contrary, the paradigm can help us understand the internal

logic and the implications of the changes.

Some critics suggest that the number of dimensions should be extended. Triandis

(2004) has defended this position, and the GLOBE project actually tried to extend the five

Hofstede dimensions to 18. But additional dimensions are only meaningful if they are both

conceptually and statistically independent from those already available, and they should

also be validated by significant correlations with conceptually related external measures.

There is an epistemological reason why the number of meaningful dimensions will always

be small. Dimensions should not be reified. They do not ‘exist’ in a tangible sense. They

are constructs: if they exist, it is in our minds (Levitin, 1973). They should help us in

understanding and handling the complex reality of our social world. But human minds have

a limited capacity for processing information, and therefore dimensional models that are

too complex will not be experienced as useful. In a famous short article, Miller (1956)

argued that useful classifications should not have more than seven categories, plus or

minus two. I would go for the minus rather than the plus.

Within the dimensional model cultures can of course change their position on a

dimension. Critics argue that Hofstede country scores based on IBM subsidiaries around

1970 are obsolete. But studies correlating the old country scores with related variables

available on a year-by-year basis in many cases find no weakening of the correlations. A

good reason for this is that the country scores on the dimensions do not provide absolute

country positions, but only their positions relative to the other countries in the set. The

relationship of the dimensions to basic problems of societies and the historical evidence of

the continuity of national solutions to such problems suggest that even over much longer

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

periods the measures obtained will retain their validity. Influences like those of new

technologies tend to affect all countries without necessarily changing their relative position

or ranking; if their cultures change, they change together. Only if on a dimension one

country leapfrogs over others will the validity of the original scores be reduced. This is a

relatively rare occurrence. China might be one of those rare cases, where after a period of

relative isolation, decades of unparalleled double-digit economic development concurrent

with rapid global exposure and integration may be bringing about shifts, especially in the

younger generation. But this remains to be demonstrated in carefully designed research.

Some authors predict that new technologies will make societies more and more

similar. Technological modernization is an important force toward culture change and it

leads to partly similar developments in different societies, but there is not the slightest

proof that it wipes out variety on other dimensions. It may even increase differences, as on

the basis of pre-existing value systems societies cope with technological modernization in

different ways.

Culture change basic enough to invalidate the country dimension index rankings, or

even the relevance of the dimensional model, will need either a much longer period – say,

50 to 100 years – or extremely dramatic outside events. Many differences between

national cultures at the end of the 20th century were already recognizable in the years

1900, 1800 and 1700 if not earlier. There is no reason why they should not play a role until

2100 or beyond.

References

Adelman, I & Morris, C. T. (1967). Society, politics and economic development: A

quantitative approach. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-62.

Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston TX: Gulf.

Cattell, R. B. (1949). The dimensions of culture patterns by factorization of national

characters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 443-69.

Chinese Culture Connection (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free

dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-64.

Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)

and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Douglas, M. (1973). Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. Harmondsworth, UK:

Penguin.

Gregg, P. M. & Banks, A. S. (1965). Dimensions of political systems: Factor analysis of a

cross-polity survey. American Political Science Review, 59, 602-14.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. (1998). Culture at work in aviation and medicine:

National, organizational and professional influences. Aldershot, Hants, UK: Ashgate.

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related

Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, UK:

McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions

and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (co-published in the

PRC as Vol. 10 in the Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press SFLEP

Intercultural Communication Reference Series, 2008)

Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus

respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 882-96.

Hofstede, G. (2010). The GLOBE debate: Back to relevance. Journal of International

Business Studies, 41, 1339-46.

Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to

economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4-21.

Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind

(Rev. 2

ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. For translations see www.geerthofstede.nl

and “our books”.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software

of the Mind (Rev. 3

ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. For translations see

www.geerthofstede.nl and “our books”.

Hofstede, G. & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Culture and personality revisited: Linking traits and

dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 52-88.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D. & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational

cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.

Hofstede, G. with Arrindell, W. A., Best, D. L., de Mooij, M. Hoppe, M. H., van de Vliert, E.,

van Rossum, J. H. A., Verweij, J., Vunderink, M. & Williams, J. E. (1998). Masculinity

and Femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004).

Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and

political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Inkeles, A. & Levinson, D. J. (1969). National character: The study of modal personality

and sociocultural systems. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of

Social Psychology IV (pp. 418-506). New York: McGraw-Hill (first published 1954).

Kim, U, Triandis, H. C., Kagitçibasi, C., Choi, S. C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994),

Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s

Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural

values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285-320.

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Kluckhohn, C. (1962). Universal categories of culture. In S. Tax (Ed.), Anthropology today:

Selections (pp. 304-20). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (first published

1952).

Kluckhohn, F. R. & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University

of Chicago Press.

Levitin, T. (1973). Values. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of social

psychological attitudes (pp. 489-502). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute

for Social Research, Survey Research Center.

Lynn, R. (1971). Personality and National Character. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Lynn, R. & Hampson, S. L. (1975). National differences in extraversion and neuroticism.

British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 223-240.

Merton, R. K. (1968[1949]). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our

capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Minkov, M. (2007). What makes us different and similar: A new interpretation of the World

Values Survey and other cross-cultural data. Sofia, Bulgaria: Klasika i Stil.

Minkov, M. (2011). Cultural differences in a globalizing world. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Minkov, M. & Blagoev, V. (2011). What do Project GLOBE’s cultural dimensions reflect?

An empirical perspective. Asia Pacific Business Review online at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2010.496292 .

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M. & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking Individualism and

Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses.

Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.

Parsons, T. & Shils, E. A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from

America’s best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Schimmack, U., Oishi, S. & Diener, E. (2005). Individualism: A valid and important

dimension of cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 9, 17-31.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of

values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitçibasi, S. C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.),

Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications (pp. 85-119).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwartz, S. H. & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across culture: Taking a similarities

perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268-290.

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8

Smith, P. B., Trompenaars, F. & Dugan, S. (1995). The Rotter locus of control scale in 43

countries: A test of cultural relativity. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 377-

400.

Smith, P. B., Dugan, S. & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of

organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231-264.

Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F. & Schwartz, S. H. (2002) Cultural values, sources of

guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47-nation study. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 188-208.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Triandis, H. C. (2004). The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management

Executive, 18, 88-93.

Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in

Business. London, UK: Economist Books.

World Values Survey (ongoing). Online at www.worldvaluessurvey.org .

About the Author

Geert Hofstede (1928) holds an M.Sc. level degree in mechanical engineering and a Ph.D.

level degree in social psychology. He had a varied career both in industry and in

academia, retiring as a professor of organizational anthropology and international

management from the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1993. Through his

book Culture’s Consequences (1980, new edition 2001) he became a pioneer of

comparative intercultural research; his ideas are used worldwide. A student-level book

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (1991, third edition 2010 co-authored

with Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov) has so far appeared in 17 European and 4

Asian languages. Geert Hofstede was listed in the Wall Street Journal of May 2008 among

the Top 20 most influential business thinkers. He held visiting professorships in Hong

Kong, Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand. He received honorary doctorates from ten

European universities, and is a Fellow of the Academy of Management and the Academy

of International Business in the USA and a Honorary Fellow of the International

Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology.

Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Discussion Questions

1. In today’s newspaper, find an article about an event or situation in which cultural

differences between persons born and educated in different countries may have

played a role (there are always several). Which one of the six Hofstede et al.

(2010) dimensions is most useful for understanding what was said and done?

2. Think of the last time you personally experienced a culture shock. Culture shock

occurs when somebody becomes painfully aware that a person or persons born

and educated in another country think(s), feel(s) and/or act(s) differently from what

was expected. What happened and which one of the six Hofstede et al. (2010)

dimensions explains best the reason for the shock?

3. Next time you attend an international meeting, compare the theories and ways of

presentation of participants born and educated in different countries. Which one of

the six Hofstede et al. (2010) dimensions was most useful for understanding the

differences in what was said and how?

4. Draw the culture profile of the country in which you grew up on the six Hofstede et

al. (2010) dimensions. Then imagine two persons from two different countries and

imagine how each of them will describe your culture to a compatriot.

Culture scores of countries can be found in Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010) and on our

home website www.geerthofstede.eu under “research and VSM” and “dimension data matrix”.

Scores are also published on other websites and apps, but the author is not responsible for the

information presented there.

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2, Subunit 1, Chapter 8

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8