Dimensions of culture Flashcards
What is culture?
- Concept originating in anthropology
- Increasing impact on social sciences over course of 20th century
- Kroeber & Kluckhohn (1963) famously listed 161 different definitions!
Anthropological definitions
- includes
- “That complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, laws, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man [sic] as a member of society” (Tylor, 1871)
- “The man-made [sic] part of the human environment” (Herskovits, 1948)
— Includes both physical artefacts and social systems
Psychological definitions
- “The totality of equivalent and complementary learned meanings maintained by a human population, or by identifiable segments of a population, and transmitted from one generation to the next (Rohner, 1984) (The culture belongs to a group of people and gets transmitted)
- “The collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group […] of people from another (Hofstede, 2001)
(alongs to groups of people and is linked to how we distinguish groups of people from each other)
Social systems (cultural groups)
- definitions
- what can you have cultural groups at?
- social systems…
- cultures…
- what do cultures make/ allow for?
- “The behaviour of multiple individuals within a culturally-organized population, including their patterns of interaction and networks of social relationships” (Rohner, 1984)
- Can have cultural groups at different levels - might include nations, organisations, families, etc.
- Social systems ‘have’ cultures
- Cultures do not ‘have’ social systems
- Cultures make behaviour comprehensible and allows people to make sense of the world and each other
(Different groups of people can have shared means which they communicate with each other and transmit over generations. Those meanings can differentiate groups from each other.)
Cross-cultural, cultural and indigenous approaches:
some potential pitfalls
- Theorising based on stereotypes
– NB power differentials
– Importance of exploring (willing to learn what pp’s and data tells you) - Methodological issues
– Working in multiple languages
– Comparability of constructs
– Response styles (e.g., acquiescence) (in how they use the scale)
– Cultures are not individuals
Emic and etic perspectives
(See Berry, 1989)
Emic approaches
- grounded in specific cultural context - no claim to generality or attempt to compare
Etic approaches
- aspire to universality or at least comparability (that transcend cultures which apply to everyone) - imposed etic vs. derived etic
imposed- researchers from one culture use their own cultural components to try understand everyone
derived- start with etic approaches and then try to find comparative concepts and make comparisons
Cross-cultural psychology
- How and why do psychological processes differ across cultures?
- origins in?
- Question: How and why do psychological processes differ across cultures?
– Influence of cultural context on individuals
– Often focuses on cross-national comparison
– Relativism → higher-order universality - Origins in social/organisational psychology
– Mainly surveys, some experiments
Cultural psychology
- How do cultures ‘work’?
- ______ → ______
- Question: How do cultures ‘work’?
– Psychological study of cultural processes
– Relationship between individual and society
– Often ‘within-culture’ focus - Social anthropology → social cognition
– Qualitative studies in single cultures → experiments in two or more cultures
Indigenous psychologies
How can psychology become more globally representative?
movement within psychology which is focusing on overcoming power dynamics
Question: How can psychology become more globally representative?
- Overcoming power dynamics by empowering diverse local perspectives (~decolonisation)
- Indigenous methods
- Initially avoid cultural comparisons
- “Psychology” = Western indigenous psychology
- Can lead to cross-indigenous approach
Comparative culturology
- How do societies differ in their cultural characteristics?
- ______ → ______
studying the cultural component we inhibit
- Question: How do societies differ in their cultural characteristics?
– Often confused with cross-cultural psychology
– Focus on describing cultural norms of societies, not individuals’ psychological functioning
– Societies provide the cultural contexts for individuals’ psychological functioning - Business studies → political science
– Large multinational surveys
Hofstede’s project and the beginnings of comparative culturology:
Early cross-cultural studies:
- failures to …
- problem in…
- need…
- attempts…
- Failures to replicate US findings:
– Conformity (shown in rest of world > US & Europe)
– Social loafing (people work less hard when they’re in a group) (US effects reversed in Pacific Asia) - Problem is how to explain these differences
– Showing differences between nations is just description, but social science demands explanation! - Need a theory of how cultures differ
- Attempts to construct cultural ‘map of the world’
Hofstede’s project
- IBM (HERMES) employee surveys
– Originally conducted 1967 and 1973
– 116,000 respondents in 72 countries
– Questions about job satisfaction, perceptions of work situations, personal goals and beliefs
– Wide variety of response formats - Hofstede conducted secondary analysis to look for dimensions of cultural variation
Cultures and individuals
“Cultures are not king-size individuals [. . .] and their internal logic cannot be understood in the terms used for the personality dynamics of individuals” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 17).
He did not assume that the differences he found between societies would also have comparative differences between individuals.
The ecological fallacy
We should interpret something in a group level as applying to individuals of vice versa
- Ecological level of analysis
- Robinson’s (1950) paradox:
– US states: %immigrants and %literacy (r =.526)
– Individuals: immigrant status and literacy (r = -.118) - Different explanations at each level of analysis
– Ecological fallacy is falsely extrapolating group-level findings to individual level of explanation
– Reverse ecological fallacy is wrongly attributing properties of individuals to cultures - (Robinson noticed that correlations can be different across different levels of analysis
- states that have higher immigration have higher literacy
- But in the individual level within these states you don’t find this correlation and you actually find a negative correlation)
Survey response styles
- Methodological problem
– People in different cultures use response scales in different ways
– Variation in acquiescence – in some cultures people tend to agree more with everything - Hofstede’s solution
– Country mean agreement with all items
– Subtract and/or control in analyses
Hofstede’s analysis
- Analysis at ecological level
- Sufficient data for CC analysis of 40 countries
- Each item → weighted country mean
- Combination of averages within different occupational groups within IBM (marketing and service depts.)
- Corrected for acquiescence where possible
- Theoretically guided data exploration led to ‘discovery’ of 4 dimensions of CC variation. The fist two were hypothesised in advance. The second two were early exploratory.
1: Power distance (PD)
- idea
- survey items
- highest/ lowest countries
- Extent to which members of a society accept that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally (Idea that some societies are more hierarchical than others)
- Survey items:
– Employees afraid to disagree with managers
– Subordinates perceive Bosses as autocratic or paternalistic (as opposed to democratic or consultative)
– Subordinates would like Bosses to be autocratic, paternalistic or democratic (as opposed to consultative) - Highest: Malaysia, Guatemala, Panama
- Lowest: Austria, Israel, Denmark
2: Uncertainty avoidance (UA)
- idea
- 3 things
- Highest/ lowest countries
- Degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity, which leads them to support beliefs promising certainty and to maintain institutions protecting conformity
– Company rules should not be broken—even when employee thinks in company’s best interest
– % employees expecting to stay at least 5 years
– How often feel nervous or tense at work (stress) - Highest: Greece, Portugal, Guatemala
- Lowest: Singapore, Jamaica, Denmark
3: Individualism (IDV)
Individualism vs Collectivism
- Individualism: A preference for a loosely knit social framework in society in which individuals are supposed to take care of themselves and their immediate families
- Collectivism: A preference for a tightly knit social framework in which individuals can expect their relatives, clan or other in-group to look after them, in exchange for unquestioning loyalty
3: Individualism (IDV)
- assessed by?
- highest/ lowest countries
- correlation?
- subsequent research?
- Assessed by items about work goals:
– Individualism societies: personal time, freedom, challenge
– Collectivism societies: training, physical conditions, use of skills - Highest: USA, Australia, Great Britain (richer)
- Lowest: Guatemala, Ecuador, Panama (poorer)
- Strong negative correlation with PD (r = -.68)
- Enormous amount of subsequent research
– For review, see Triandis (1995)
– For critique, see Oyserman et al. (2002)
– For riposte, see Schimmack et al. (2005)
4: Masculinity (MAS)
Masculinity vs Femininity
- Masculinity: A preference for achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material success
- Femininity: A preference for relationships, modesty, caring for the weak, and quality of life
4: Masculinity (MAS)
- assessed
- highest/ lowest country
- chose of name
- what does it have?
- uncorrelated with…
- Assessed by items about work goals:
– MAS: earnings, recognition, advancement, challenge
– FEM: relationship with manager, cooperation, live in desirable area, employment security - Highest: Japan, Austria, Venezuela
- Lowest: Sweden, Norway, Netherlands
- Unfortunate choice of name by Hofstede
– Masculinities and femininities differ across cultures!
– a.k.a. toughness vs. tenderness
– Reverse ecological fallacy? - Has some predictive value
– e.g., %GNP spent on international development - NB: Uncorrelated with IDV (r = .00)
– FEM: focus on relationships, others in general
– COL: focus on in-groups, social position
Are these the BIG 4?
- Hofstede’s dimensions of cultural variation
– Power distance (PD)
– Uncertainty avoidance (UA)
– Individualism (vs. Collectivism) (IDV)
– Masculinity (vs. Femininity) (MAS) - Provide 4D cultural ‘map of the world’
- Guided much future research (mostly IDV)
Chinese Culture Connection (1987)
- International project
– Student participants in 22 nations
– 40 values proposed by Chinese social scientists and/or taken from Chinese philosophy
– No attempt to be culturally inclusive! - Statistical analyses
– Items adjusted for response style
– Ecological-level factor analysis
Chinese Culture Connection
Four cultural dimensions
- I: Integration
– tolerance, harmony vs. filial piety, chastity - II: Confucian work dynamism
– persistence, thrift, ordering relationships by status, sense of shame vs. personal stability, protecting face, respect for tradition, reciprocation of favours - III: Human-heartedness
– patience, kindness vs. patriotism, righteousness - IV: Moral discipline
– few desires, moderation vs. adaptability, prudence
Correlations with Hofstede
- I: Integration correlated with IDV vs. PD
– tolerance, harmony vs. filial piety, chastity - II: Confucian work dynamism
– persistence, thrift, ordering relationships by status, sense of shame vs. personal stability, protecting face, respect for tradition, reciprocation of favours - III: Human-heartedness correlated with MAS
– patience, kindness vs. patriotism, righteousness - IV: Moral discipline correlated with PD vs. IDV
– few desires, moderation vs. adaptability, prudence
A new dimension!
- I: Integration correlates with +IDV, -PD
– tolerance, harmony vs. filial piety, chastity - II: Confucian work dynamism
– persistence, thrift, ordering relationships by status, sense of shame vs. personal stability, protecting face, respect for tradition, reciprocation of favours - III: Human-heartedness correlates with +MAS
– patience, kindness vs. patriotism, righteousness - IV: Moral discipline correlates with -IDV, +PD
– few desires, moderation vs. adaptability, prudence
Confucian work dynamism
- added to?
- positive correlation with?
- Added to Hofstede model as 5th dimension
– Renamed Long-Term Orientation (LTO) - Positive correlation with economic growth
– Highest: China (mainland & HK), Taiwan, Japan
– Lowest: Pakistan, Nigeria, Philippines
Schwartz’ critique of Hofstede
- Content too narrow?
- Some world regions unrepresented
- Effects of sample type
- Historical change
- Culture-level vs. individual-level dimensions
- Meaning equivalence of items
Schwartz Values Survey (1990-now)
- Research into structure of values
– Individual and cultural levels of analysis
– List of 56 values rated for importance “as a guiding principle in my life”
– Items derived from diverse sources
— Rokeach Values Survey, Chinese Culture Connection, social sciences and humanities, research collaborators
– Initial study sampled teachers and students
– Currently >80,000 participants in 82 countries
Within-cultures analyses
- Do items have similar meanings in each culture?
- Separate within-culture smallest space analyses in each sample to check for similar structure
– Responses “ipsatised” within participants to control for acquiescent response style
– Therefore, analysis is of relative value endorsement
- Similar structure observed in most samples
from diagram:
- Within any culture individuals who value things like power/ achievement may be less likely to prioritise values like benevolence
- Individuals who value traditional and security may be less likely to value things like self-direction and stimulation
Between-cultures analysis
- 40 of 56 values showed similar positions in structure within all cultures
- Country means for ecological analysis
- Standardisation to remove acquiescence
- Ecological smallest space analysis shows circumplex model of seven value types
from diagram:
- Distinction between valuing autonomy and embededness
- Distinction between valuing equality or hierarchy
- Distinction between valuing harmony and mastery
Comparing levels of analysis
- Within-cultures
– Openness to change vs. conservation
– Self-transcendence vs self-enhancement - Between-cultures
– Autonomy vs. embeddedness
– Harmony vs. mastery
– Egalitarianism vs. hierarchy - NB differences in selected values
From diagram
- Values like power, authority, wealth tend to go together and individuals who value these things are not likely to value things such as being humble
- If you look at the cultural/ societal level then all of these go together
- In a society that is more hierarchical you will have people who value power and wealth but you also need people who value accepting the hierarchical differences who may value humility.
- Not the same individuals but tend to go together in the same societies.
Comparing Hofstede
- Some conceptual similarities
- Correlations (see Schwartz 1994):
– Individualism + autonomy + egalitarianism versus power distance + embeddedness + hierarchy
– Mastery correlated weakly with MAS
– Harmony correlated weakly with UA
Revised Minkov-Hofstede model
Updating Hofstede’s model
- Minkov (2018; see also Minkov et al., 2017, 2018)
– Reanalyses of existing data (e.g., World Values Survey)
– New samples from 56 nations (N > 52,000)
– New items to measure Hofstede dimensions and more
– Bipolar format to account for acquiescence
– Between-culture analysis only - Individualism replicated (≈ low power distance)
- CWD/LTO renamed → monumentalism vs. flexibility
- Masculinity and uncertainty avoidance not replicated
Individualism versus collectivism
example items
IDV
- I rarely observe religious rules
- I arrive on time
- I will argue
- I do favours only for favours
- I prefer to mind my own life
CVS
- I am very religious
- I am often late
- I avoid conflicts
- I can do favours just to see my friends happy
- I would like to be a boss
Monumentalism versus flexibility
Monumentalism
- I would feel bad if I had to pretend
- I like to help
- I like to compete
- I am always the same person
Flexibility
- I can pretend without feeling bad
- I rarely agree to help
- I hate to compete
- I am different at home and outside
Their map of the world
(Collectivist societies and lower down, individualist are higher up)
- If you draw circles around, you have something which looks like a world map.
- Meaningful differences can be seen between regions
- A lot of these differences are on monumentalism-flexibility rather than being on collectivism-individualism
Conclusion:
1- what are cultures not?
2- what dimension is found in all studies
3- what is multifaceted
4- note that _____ is not the same as _____
5- what seem promising
1- “Cultures are not king-size individuals”
2- Individualism vs. collectivism (and power distance) dimension found in all studies
3- But cultural variation is multifaceted
4- Note that collectivism is not the same as femininity, harmony, egalitarianism, or flexibility
5- Two-dimensional models of culture seem promising, but no consensus yet
