After Hofstede proposed individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) as a dimension of national culture, numerous studies have used that name to refer to individual-level psychological constructs, based on theories and empirical operationalizations that are not necessarily compatible with the Hofstede tradition. This has created confusion. In this study, we investigate whether the two revised Minkov-Hofstede dimensions of national culture - IDV-COLL and “flexibility-monumentalism” (FLX-MON) - have individual-level counterparts and if they are isomorphic (have the same structure at both levels of analysis). We find that the three main conceptual facets of national COLL (conformism, ascendancy, and exclusionism) and the three of MON (self-esteem, self-stability, and generosity) materialize as six independent individual-level dimensions in a nationally representative sample from Mongolia (n = 1500). This structure emerged in a confirmatory factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, and hierarchical cluster analyses. This is the first series of analyses of the structure of the individual-level ingredients of national IDV-COLL and FLX-MON,
BeugelsdijkS.WelzelC. (2018). Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10), 1469–1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118798505
2.
BondM. H. (2002). Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis—A 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.73
3.
Borgerhoff-MulderM. B.FazzioI.IronsW.McElreathR. L.BowlesS.BellS.HertzT.HazzahL. (2010). Pastoralism and wealth inequality: Revisiting an old question. Current Anthropology, 51(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1086/648561
4.
Brosseau-LiardP. E.SavaleiV. (2014). Adjusting incremental fit indices for nonnormality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(5), 460–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.933697
5.
Brosseau-LiardP. E.SavaleiV.LiL. (2012). An investigation of the sample performance of two nonnormality corrections for RMSEA. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(6), 904–930. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715252
6.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guildford Press.
7.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternate ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
8.
ChiesiF.BonacchiA.PrimiC.ToccafondiA.MiccinesiG. (2018). Are three items sufficient to measure sense of coherence? Evidence from nonclinical and clinical samples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 34(4), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000337
9.
ElliottG. C. (1986). Self-esteem and self-consistency: A theoretical and empirical link between two primary motivations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49(3), 2007–2218. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786803
10.
FogA. (2021). A test of the reproducibility of the clustering of cultural variables. Cross-Cultural Research, 55(1), 29–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120956948
11.
FontaineJ. R. J.PoortingaY. H.DelbekeL.SchwartzS. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures: Distinguishing sampling fluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(4), 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108318112
12.
GrennessT. (2012). Hofstede revisited: Is making the ecological fallacy when using Hofstede’s instrument on individual behavior really unavoidable?International Journal of International Journal of Business and Management, 7(7), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n7p75
13.
HeineS. J. (2003). An exploration of cultural variation in self-enhancing and self-improving motivations. In Murphy-BermanV.BermanJ. J. (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on the self, 49, 01-128). University of Nebraska Press.
14.
HeineS. J.HamamuraT. (2007). In search of East Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294587
15.
HofstedeG. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
16.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage.
17.
HofstedeG.McCraeR. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397103259443
18.
HouseR. J.HangesP. J.JavidanM.DorfmanP. W.GuptaV. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage.
19.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
20.
InglehartR.BakerW. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657288
21.
JohnsonA. (2000). Horticulturalists; Economic behavior in tribes. In SandersonS. K. (Ed.). Sociological worlds; Comparative and historical readers on society (pp. 15–24). Fitzroy Dearborn.
22.
JorgensenT. D.PornprasertmanitS.SchoemannA. M.RosseelY. (2022). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.5-6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools
23.
KlineR. B., 2015. Principles and Practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
24.
MarcusJ.LeH. (2013). Interactive effects of levels of individualism–collectivism on cooperation. A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(6), 813–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1875
25.
MerrittA. (2000). Culture in the cockpit: Do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate?Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031003001
26.
MinkovM. (2018). A revision of Hofstede's model of national culture: Old evidence and new data from 56 countries. Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management, 25(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccsm-03-2017-0033
27.
MinkovM.BondM. H.DuttP.SchachnerM.MoralesO.SanchezC.JandosovaJ.KhassenbekovY.MuddB. (2018). A reconsideration of Hofstede's fifth dimension: New flexibility versus monumentalism data from 54 countries. Cross-Cultural Research. 52(3), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117727488
28.
MinkovM.DuttP.VarmaT.SchachnerM.MoralesO.SanchezC. J.KhassenbekovY.MuddB. (2017). A revision of Hofstede's individualism-collectivism dimension: A new national index from a 56-country study. Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management, 24(3), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccsm-11-2016-0197
29.
MinkovM.HofstedeG. (2012). Hofstede’s fifth dimension; New evidence from the world values Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43 (1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110388567
30.
MinkovM.KaasaA. (2021a). A test of Hofstede’s model of culture following his own approach. Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management, 28(2), 384–406. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccsm-05-2020-0120
31.
MinkovM.KaasaA. (2021b). A test of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture: Mirror images of subjective and objective culture across nations and the 50 US states. Cross-Cultural Research, 56(2–3), 230–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211014468
32.
MinkovM.KaasaA. (2022). Do dimensions of culture exist objectively? A validation of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model with world values Survey items and scores for 102 countries. Journal of International Management, 28(4), 100971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2022.100971
33.
MinkovM.van de VijverF.SchachnerM. (2019). A test of a new short Big-Five tool in large probabilistic samples from 19 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109519
34.
MoritzM. (2008). A critical examination of honor cultures and herding societies in Africa. African Studies Review, 51(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1353/arw.0.0052
35.
OysermanD.CoonH. M.KemmelmeierM. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
36.
RileyM. R.MohrD. C.WaddimbaA. C. (2017). The reliability and validity of three-item screening measures for burnout: Evidence from group-employed health care practitioners in upstate New York. Stress and Health, 34(1), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2762
37.
RönkköM.ChoE. (2020). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25, (1), 1094428120968614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614
38.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
39.
SandyC. J.GoslingS. D.SchwartzS. H.KoelkebeckT. (2017). The development and validation of brief and ultrabrief measures of values. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(5), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1231115
40.
SarisW. E.SatorraA.Van der VeldW. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications?Structural Equation Modeling, 16(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433
41.
SavaleiV. (2018). On the computation of the RMSEA and CFI from the mean-and-variance corrected test statistic with nonnormal data in SEM. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(3), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1455142
42.
SchmittD. P.AllikJ. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.623
43.
SchmittD. P.AllikJ.McCraeR. R.Benet-MartinezV. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297299
44.
SchwartzS. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In KimU.KagitcibasiC.TriandisH. C.ChoiS. C.YoonG. (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application (pp. 85–119). Sage.
SchwartzS. H. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(6), 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107308992
47.
SchwartzS. H. (2008). Cultural value orientations: Nature and implications of national differences. State University—Higher School of Economics Press.
48.
SchwartzS. H. (2011). Studying values: Personal adventure, future directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(2) 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110396925
49.
SchwartzS. H. (2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113490830
50.
SchwartzS. H.SagivL. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 92–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022195261007
51.
SmithP. B. (2002). Levels of analysis in cross-cultural psychology. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture Unit2, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1018
52.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the big-five Inventory-2: The BFI-2S and BFI-2-ES. Journal of Research in Personality. 68, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004
53.
TalhelmT.ZhangX.OishiS.ShiminC.DuanD.LanX.KitayamaS. (2014) Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture. Science, 344(6184). 603–607. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246850
54.
TarasV.SteelP.KirkmanB. L. (2012). Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede’s dimensions”. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2011.05.001
55.
TayL.WooS. E.VermuntJ. K. (2014). A conceptual and methodological framework for psychometric isomorphism: Validation of multilevel construct measures. Organizational Research Methods, 7(1) 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113517008
56.
ThalmayerA.SaucierG.EigenhuisA. (2011). Comparative validity of brief to medium-length big five and big six personality questionnaires. Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 995–1009. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024165
TriandisH. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press.
59.
TriandisH. C.GelfandM. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118
VignolesV. L.OweE.BeckerM.SmithP. B.EasterbrookM.Gonzalez et al. (2016). Beyond the “East-West” dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 966–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000175
62.
WelzelC. (2013). Freedom rising. Cambridge University Press.
63.
WelzelC.InglehartR. F. (2016). Misconceptions of measurement equivalence: Time for a paradigm shift. Comparative Political Studies, 49(8), 1068–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016628275
64.
WhittleseyD. (1936). Major agricultural regions of the earth. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 26(4), 199–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045603609357154
65.
YooB.DonthuN.LenartowiczT. (2011). Measuring Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3–4), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016628275
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
