See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/371141716

Cultural Dimensions Theory

Chapter · May 2023

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_376-1

CITATIONS READS

0 5,565

1 author:

Yulia S. Shkurko

29 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yulia S. Shkurko on 27 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

C

Cultural Dimensions Theory Cultural dimension theories do not currently

provide an interconnected measure of cultural
Yulia Shkurko difference, although they capture cross-
Department of Philosophy, Ulyanovsk State correlations between individual postulated dimen-
University, Ulyanovsk, Russia sions (see Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 1994;
Gelfand, 2018, etc.).

Synonyms
Measured Cultural Differences
Cultural differences; Culture; National differ-
ences; Norms; Social beliefs; Values Common to most cultural dimensions’ theories
(Table 1) is (1) the interpretation of cultural dif-
ferences as a response to the solution of universal
Definition problems of survival / basic problems for any
society (e.g., hierarchical relations in society, the
“Cultural dimensions theory” is a name used to problem of eliciting prosocial action, the problem
designate empirically verified and theoretically of boundaries between the individual and the
substantiated systems of ideas about the presence group, etc.), (2) recognition of the central role of
of stable differences between representatives of one of the elements of culture (values, social
national cultures (countries) at the level (in most norms, and beliefs) in determining cultural differ-
cases) of values (Hofstede, Trompenaars, ences, (3) interpretation of differences without
Schwartz, Inglehart, and others), social norms judgment as being neither good nor bad, (4) pos-
(Gelfand), and generalized beliefs about the tulating a probabilistic nature of influence culture
world (Leung & Bond). on people’s behavior and perception, and finally
Cross-cultural differences are usually recorded (5) fundamental for theories is the recognition that
as a numerical indicator (for example, mean score, differences make sense only when they are con-
combined score, etc.), which allows one to judge sidered relative to the characteristics of represen-
the degree of importance and prevalence of the tatives of other national cultures, which is fixed in
analyzed values, norms, beliefs in a certain cul- the definition of the concept of “dimension” as “an
tural environment in relation to another. At the aspect of a culture that can be measured relative to
same time, specific indicators of cultural dimen- other cultures” (Hofstede, 2011: 7; Hofstede et al.,
sions, as a rule, are located on a continuum 2010: 31).
between their extreme positions.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
T. K. Shackelford (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_376-1
2 Cultural Dimensions Theory

Cultural Dimensions Theory, Table 1 Cultural dimensions theories

Authors of the theory, years of first, and/or
main publication Cultural dimensions
Hofstede (1980), Hofstede and Bond 1. Power distance (small or large): “the extent to which the less powerful
(1988), Hofstede et al. (2010) members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and
expect that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 2011: 9)
2. Uncertainty avoidance (weak or strong): “the extent to which the
members of a culture to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in
unstructured situations” (Hofstede, 2011: 10)
3. Individualism versus collectivism: “the degree to which people in a
society are integrated into groups” (Hofstede, 2011: 11)
4. Masculinity versus femininity: prevalence of the assertive, the
competitive, or the modest, caring values (Hofstede, 2011: 11)
5. Long-term versus short-term orientation: “How every society has to
maintain some links with its own past while dealing with the challenges of
the present and future” (Hofstede insights, website)
6. Indulgence versus restraint: “The extent to which people try to control
their desires and impulses” (Hofstede insights, website)
Trompenaars (1993) 1. Universalism–particularism: following standardized rules versus
flexible approach to unique situations
2. Individualism–communitarianism: focus on individual or group
interests
3. Neutral–affective: control over emotions versus open expression of
emotions
4. Specific–diffuse: low versus high degree of involvement in personal
relationships
5. Achievement–ascription: the dependence of status and power on
personal achievements versus the characteristics of the social position that
you already have
6. Sequential–synchronic: doing things one after the other versus multiple
things at the same time
7. Internal–external control: acting based on internal stimuli and a sense
of control versus adapting to external events that are out of your control
Inglehart (1997), Inglehart and Welzel 1. Survival versus self-expression (well-being) values: the priority of
(2005) economic and physical security over self-expression and quality of life,
describing oneself as not very happy people, rejection of homosexuality,
nonsigning of petitions, and distrust of people; self-expression values are
opposite (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005: 49)
2. Traditional versus secular-rational values: the importance of religion in
the life of the individual, teaching children obedience and religious faith,
rejection of abortion, and national pride and respect for authority; secular-
rational values are opposite (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005: 49)
Schwartz (1994) 1. Intellectual and affective autonomy versus conservatism/
embeddedness: “view the person as an autonomous entity entitled to
pursue his or her individual interests and desires” (Schwartz, 1994) versus
“societies based on close-knit harmonious relations, in which the interests
of the person are not viewed as distinct from those of the group”
(Schwartz, 1994)
2. Hierarchy and mastery versus egalitarian commitment and harmony
with nature: “value type as emphasizing the legitimacy of hierarchical role
and resource allocation” and the values “emphasize active mastery of the
social environment through self-assertion” (Schwartz, 1994) versus
“values that express transcendence of selfish interests” and “fitting into the
world as it is, trying to understand and appreciate rather than to change,
direct, or to exploit,” “world at peace, unity with nature, and protecting the
environment” (Schwartz, 1994, Schwartz, 2004)
(continued)
Cultural Dimensions Theory 3

Cultural Dimensions Theory, Table 1 (continued)

Authors of the theory, years of first, and/or
main publication Cultural dimensions
Leung and Bond (2004) 1. Dynamic externality: “the belief in external control as well as the
usefulness of personal striving” (Leung & Bond, 2015)
2. Societal cynicism: “a negative view of human nature, especially as it is
easily corrupted by power, a biased view against some groups of people, a
mistrust of social institutions, and a disregard of ethical means for
achieving an end” (Leung & Bond, 2004: 134)
Gelfand et al. (2011), Gelfand (2018) Tightness – strong social norms, low tolerance for deviation (rule makers)
versus looseness – weak social norms, highly permissive (rule breakers)
cultures

Geert Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimensions Charles Hampden-Turner, who helped him “to
is one of the earliest and most used in cross- develop thinking about culture as a way of solving
cultural studies. For the first time, the model (the dilemmas” (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner,
first four dimensions listed in the table) was 1997: ix). The idea of value reconciliation has
presented in Hofstede’s work “Culture’s Conse- become an important part of the updated model,
quences: International Differences in Work- in which cultural differences are treated as deter-
Related Values” in 1980 (went through several mined by the specific solutions culture chooses to
editions). It was the result of an analysis of survey certain problems which reveal themselves as
data from 1967–1970 (more than 100,000 ques- dilemmas (arise from contradictions between
tionnaires) on the values and related sentiments of values) (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997:
employees of the multinational company IBM 6, 8). Dilemmas are related to relationships with
from more than 50 countries of the world. And other people (similar to those described in the
later, two more dimensions were added to this concept of Talcott Parsons), attitudes toward
model: in the 1980s – long-term versus short- time and the environment (Trompenaars &
term orientation (based on research by Michael Hampden-Turner, 2020). The implicit attitudes
Bond in the Far East; Hofstede & Bond, 1988) and underlying the decision in favor of a particular
in the 2000s – indulgence versus restraint (based value dilemma – rules or exceptions, group or
on research by Michael Minkov; Hofstede et al., individual, degree of expression of feelings,
2010). degree of involvement in relation, nature of status,
In Hofstede’s theory, culture is understood as expectation in relation to time, and locus of con-
“the collective programming of the mind that dis- trol – are considered by Trompenaars and
tinguishes the members of one group or category Hampden-Turner as defining cultural differences
of people from others” (Hofstede et al., 2010: 6), (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997: 6, 8,
the invisible deep layer of which is formed by the 31–32).
values that define cultural differences. Values are In the 1970s, based on data from the European
interpreted as “fundamental feelings about life Values Survey/EVS (later – the World Values
and about other people” (Hofstede et al., Survey/WVS) Ronald Inglehart tested the hypoth-
2010: 19), which change slowly, and are esis that, approximately from the mid-1960s, a
expressed as a preference for one state of affairs process of gradual transformation of social values
over another (Hofstede et al., 2010: 9, 19). began in developed industrial countries
Methodologically and conceptually, the theory (Inglehart, 1977). The materialistic values associ-
of Fons Trompenaars (1993) largely grew out of ated with achieving material well-being and phys-
his doctoral dissertation (Trompenaars, 1985). ical security are being replaced by postmaterialist
Later, Trompenaars verified and developed the values such as the importance of belonging,
stated model in collaboration, primarily with respect, quality of life, and satisfaction of
4 Cultural Dimensions Theory

intellectual and esthetic needs. Continuing control) at the individual level (e.g., Leung &
research in this direction allowed Inglehart in Bond, 2004), and then they have been tested at
1997 to define two dimensions of cultural differ- the cultural level (Bond et al., 2004). As a result,
ence (Table 1): survival versus self-expression the following two dimensions of cultural differ-
(well-being) value orientations and traditional ences were identified: (1) dynamic externality and
versus secular-rational values (Inglehart, 1997). (2) societal cynicism (conceptually similar to this
Developing a cultural dimensions theory, dimension of axioms at the individual level), pre-
Schwartz (1994) was originally focused on find- sented in Table 1.
ing similarities between cultures rather than dif- The study (a survey of representatives of
ferences. Based on the model of cultural 33 national cultures, the results were first
differences at the individual level, he substanti- published in Science: Gelfand et al., 2011) allo-
ated its applicability to the cultural level. wed Gelfand and colleagues to identify two basic
Schwartz defines values (taking this aspect of underlying patterns in relation to social norms and
culture) as “desirable goals, varying in impor- their violation. Representatives of some cultures
tance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s agree that the social norms in their cultures are
lives. The crucial content aspect that distinguishes clear and comprehensive, and often involve
among values is the type of motivational goal they severe penalties for not following them. Such
express” (Schwartz, 1994). According to cultures are tight (Pakistan, Malaysia, Singapore,
Schwartz (2004), there are three problems that South Korea, Norway, Turkey, Japan, China, Por-
all societies face: (1) “the nature of the relation tugal, and Germany (formerly East)). People in
or the boundaries between the person and the other countries agree that the norms in their cul-
group,” (2) “responsible behavior that preserves tures are less explicit and few in number, and that
the social fabric,” and (3) “relations to the natural people follow the norms much less frequently and
and social world” (Schwartz, 2004). Bipolar are less likely to be penalized for deviance. Such
dimensions of culture represent alternative ways countries belong to looseness culture (Spain, the
of resolutions to these problems: (1) intellectual United States, Australia, New Zealand, Greece,
(broadmindedness, curiosity, and creativity) and Venezuela, Brazil, the Netherlands, Israel, Hun-
affective (pleasure and exciting and varied life) gary, Estonia, and the Ukraine). Gelfand considers
autonomy versus embeddedness (social order, conscientiousness, social order, and self-control
obedience, and respect to tradition), (2) egalitari- as assets of tight culture, and closed-mindedness,
anism (social justice and equality) versus hierar- conventionality, and cultural inertia as liabilities.
chy (authority and humility), and (3) mastery The assets of looseness are tolerance, creativity,
(ambition and daring) versus harmony (unity and adaptability, while the liabilities are social
with nature and world at peace) (Schwartz, 2004). disorder, lack of coordination, and impulsivity
Leung and Bond position their approach to the (Gelfand, 2018).
analysis of cross-cultural differences as fixing
them not at the level of values (as in Hofstede,
Schwartz, Inglehart, and others), but at the level of Cultural Differences, Gender Roles, and
beliefs about the world – social axioms. Axioms Sexual Behavior
are “generalized beliefs about the social world that
are encoded in the form of a relationship between One dimension of cultural difference in
two entities” (Leung & Bond, 2015). At the same Hofstede’s model is “femininity–masculinity.”
time, unlike values, the axioms “do not capture the The attraction of national cultures to one or
importance of these entities or concepts” (Leung another spectrum is manifested in a different
& Bond, 2015). Moreover, like Schwartz, they understanding of the role of women and men in
first identified differences in shared social axioms society. For example, feminine society (Denmark,
(social cynicism, social complexity, reward for the Netherlands, etc.) as opposed to masculine
application, spirituality/religiosity, and fate (Japan, Austria, etc.) is characterized by the
Cultural Dimensions Theory 5

following: “minimum emotional and social role differences in the levels of societal cynicism are
differentiation between the genders” (Hofstede, smaller, presumably due to the relatively higher
2011: 12; Hofstede, 2001: 299), “mothers decide levels of societal cynicism among women. How-
on number of children,” “matter-of-fact attitudes ever, the influence of differences between the
about sexuality; sex is a way of relating,” “both sexes on social cynicism is only a small fraction
boys and girls may cry but neither should fight” compared to the influence of culture.
(Hofstede, 2011: 12), “men should be tender and According to Schwartz (2004), gender equality
take care of both performance and relationships, is greater in those countries whose cultures are
women should be the same” (Hofstede, 2001: dominated by the values of egalitarianism, auton-
299), and so forth. omy, and harmony. It is also more in wealthier
Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) found that nations. In addition, the values of autonomy and
locus of control scores varied consistently egalitarianism (many Western European coun-
between men and women across cultures. tries) support women’s desire for meaningful non-
Women are more focused on external control family roles, which affects the reduction in the
than men. They are more motivated by external number of children. Whereas, embeddedness
factors, while men believe that they control their values (the Southeast Asian countries) encourage
environment by superimposing their views on it the birth of a large number of children.
(Trompenaars & Woolliams, 2003: 95). In addi- Gelfand (2018) points out differences in sexual
tion, it is noted that despite the fact that in a behavior, and attitudes toward gays and lesbians
situation of harassment, the values of universal- in tight and loose cultures. For example,
ism are focused on condemnation from the point New Zealand (loose culture) is characterized by
of view of violating the rules of the company and the largest number of sexual partners among
the immorality of such behavior, and particular- women (20, while the world average is 7.3), legal-
ism is focused on the suffering and terrible expe- ized prostitution, and legally condemned discrim-
rience of a harassed employee, in practice they ination against gays and lesbians. In addition,
reconcile and reinforce each other (Trompenaars cultural differences manifest in relation to marital
& Hampden-Turner, 2020). status – whether you are single, married, or
Inglehart (1997) considers the transition from divorced. In loose cultures (e.g., the Netherlands,
material (values of survival and security) to post- Denmark), such differences are not important,
material (values of self-expression) priorities in they are more sexually tolerant. In contrast, in
European countries as one aspect of a broader tight cultures (e.g., China, South Korea) unmar-
process of cultural change, including in the field ried women and single mothers often face “a lot of
of gender roles and sexual norms. Thus, according shame and ostracism for their unconventional life-
to Inglehart, there is a transition in the field of styles” (Gelfand, 2018).
family/sexual norms from “maximize reproduc-
tion—but only in two-parent heterosexual fami-
lies” to “individual sexual gratification,” and Conclusion
“individual self-expression” (Inglehart,
1997: 40). The latter, in particular, is expressed The theories presented in the entry and left with-
in “a general shift towards greater flexibility for out special attention (e.g., Global Leadership and
individual choice in sexual behavior, and a dra- Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Project,
matic increase in the acceptance of homosexual- see: House et al. 2004) substantiate the existence
ity” (Inglehart, 1997: 45). of cross-cultural differences based on empirical
Leung and colleagues (2012) found that in research. The sources of these differences are
most countries analyzed, men are more socially values, social norms, and beliefs that act as medi-
cynical than women. At the same time, in coun- ators of mental processes that underlie the percep-
tries where the social status of women is lower and tion, cognition, and behavior of people. In
gender empowerment is less prevalent, the sex particular, a connection was found between
6 Cultural Dimensions Theory

specific cross-cultural dimensions and differences Hofstede Insights. Country Comparison tool. https://www.
in sexual behavior and gender roles of represen- hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison-tool.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cul-
tatives of different national cultures. tures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.).
McGraw-Hill.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. &
Cross-References Gupta, V. (eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and orga-
nizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
▶ Collectivistic Cultures Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing
▶ Cross-Cultural Comparisons values and political styles among Western publics.
▶ Cross-Cultural Methods in Sexual Psychology Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and post-
▶ Cultural Context modernization: Cultural, economic, and political
▶ Cultural Relativism change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press.
▶ Femininity: Cross-Cultural Research Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural
▶ Gender Roles: Cultural Considerations change and democracy: The human development
sequence. Cambridge University Press.
▶ Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model
▶ Individualistic Cultures for social beliefs in multicultural perspective. In M. P.
▶ International Sexuality Description Project Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol-
(ISDP) ogy (Vol. 36, pp. 119–197).
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2015). Social axioms. Wiley
▶ Masculinity: Cross-Cultural Research Encyclopedia of Management, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.
1002/9781118785317.weom060183.
Leung, K., Li, F., & Zhou, F. (2012). Sex differences in
References social cynicism across societies: The role of men’s
higher competitiveness and male dominance. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1152–1166.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., et al. (2004). Culture-level Schwartz, S. (1994). Beyond individualism-collectivism:
dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C.
41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.),
548–570. Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and
Gelfand, M. (2018). Rule makers, rule breakers: How tight application (pp. 81–119). Sage.
and loose cultures wire our world. Simon & Schuster. Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., et al. (2011). differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters,
Differences between tight and loose cultures: & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures, dimensions of
A 33-nation study [published correction appears in culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 43–73). Brill.
science. Aug 19; 333(6045): 937]. Science, Trompenaars, (1985). The organization of meaning and the
332(6033), 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci- meaning of organization. Ph.D. Dissertation, The
ence.1197754 Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Interna- Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture:
tional differences in work-related values. Sage. Understanding diversity in global business (1st ed.).
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing The Economist Books.
values, Behaviors, institutions and organizations Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding
across nations. Sage. the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The business (2nd ed.). Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd.
Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychol- Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2020). Riding
ogy and culture, Unit 2. Retrieved from http:// the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global
scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8 business (4th ed.). Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius con- Trompenaars, F., & Woolliams, P. (2003). Business across
nection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Orga- cultures. Capstone Publishing Ltd (a Wiley Company).
nizational Dynamics, 16, 4–21.

View publication stats