Cross-Cultural Analysis

The Science and Art of Comparing the World′s Modern Societies and Their Cultures

Michael Minkov

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781452278858
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Science Research & Methodology
• Index: Social Sciences

Cross-Cultural Analysis is the sequel to Culture?s Consequences, the classic work published by Geert Hofstede, one of the most influential management thinkers in today?s times. Hofstede?s original work introduced a new research paradigm in cross-cultural analysis: studying cultural differences through nation-level dimensions (complex variables defined by intercorrelated items). This paradigm has been subsequently used by hundreds of prominent scholars all over the world and has produced solid results.

This new text takes the next step: It critically examines in one comprehensive volume the current, prevalent approaches to cross-cultural analysis at the level of nations that have been developed since Hofstede?s work, offering students and researchers the theoretical and practical advantages and potential pitfalls of each method.

The book is structured into four distinct parts. Parts I and II focus on the main theoretical and statistical issues in cross-cultural analysis using Hofstede?s approach and the different research methods now associated with it. Part II consists of presentations of all well-known (and some lesser known) large-scale cross-cultural studies since Hofstede?s work that have explained cross-cultural variation in terms of dimensional models. Part III summarizes the main conclusions to be drawn from the presentations in Part II and l explains how the proposed models have contributed to our practical understanding of cross-cultural diversity.

PART I

UNDERSTANDING “CULTURE”

---

1

THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE

This treatise on the study of cross-cultural differences between modern societies starts with an examination of the various ways in which culture has been conceptualized. Approaches to the concept and study of culture have varied between academic disciplines, and sometimes even within them. The goal of this analysis is not to provide one right perspective. Culture can be whatever a scholar decides it should be. What we need is not a single best theoretical definition of culture but clear empirical operationalizations of each approach: Researchers need to explain exactly how they propose to measure culture in accordance with their conceptualizations, diverse as they may be.

1.1. The “Unpackaging” of Culture

---

Psychologists who compare individuals from different nationalities or ethnic groups often observe differences between them on the dependent variables that they study. In such cases, they may show that various psychological variables, as well as age, gender, educational level, and more, produce a statistical effect that seems to account for the differences. But what if some of the variance remains unexplained? In that case, it was common practice until recently to refer to an obscure residual called “culture.” Originally, the concept of culture seemed even more opaque to researchers who compared organizations in different countries. In the words of Child (1981), “In effect, national differences found in characteristics of organizations or their members have been ascribed to… national differences, period” (p. 304).

To a cultural anthropologist, culture is neither obscure, nor a residual. It is a social phenomenon that manifests itself quite clearly, even if the manifestations are not always easy to explain. Anthropologists consider culture an important phenomenon that warrants its own field of study. They do not view it as a single variable; being an extremely complex system, it is to be analyzed in terms of its components and their relationships. Although cross-cultural psychologists and organizational behavior experts accepted this logic relatively late, by now they too have grasped the need to unpackage culture rather than approach it as a monolithic block.¹ This chapter and the next prepare the reader for the third one, which represents an unpackaging exercise. We must start with a philosophical warning at the very outset of our journey. We will not try to find out what is in the package because that would be futile. Culture is not a specific material object that has its own objective existence. It is underpinned by real phenomena that, however, we perceive and analyze subjectively. Therefore, the best that we can do in a discussion of the nature of culture is to explore the subjective conceptualizations of various scholars. Then, we can discuss the contents of the package labeled “culture” as they have been seen by cross-cultural experts.

1.2. Meaning of the Word Culture and Definitions of the Concept

---

The origin of the Latin word cultura is clear. It is a derivative of the verb colo (infinitive colere), meaning “to tend,” “to cultivate,” and “to till,” among other things (Tucker, 1931). It can take objects such as ager, hence agricultura, whose literal meaning is “field tilling.” Another possible object of the verb colo is animus (“character”). In that case, the expression would refer to the cultivation of the human character. Consequently, the Latin noun cultura can be associated with education and refinement.

The etymological analysis of “culture” is quite uncontroversial. But in the field of anthropology, the situation is much more complex. Definitions of culture abound and range from very complex to very simple. For example, a complex definition was proposed by Kroeber and Parsons (1958): “transmitted and created content and patterns of values, ideas, and other symbolic-meaningful systems as factors in the shaping of human behavior” (p. 583). An even less easily comprehensible definition was provided by White (1959/2007): “By culture we mean an extrasomatic, temporal continuum of things and events dependent upon symboling” (p. 3). Often cited is also a definition by Kluckhohn (1951):

Culture consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values. (p. 86, no. 5)

But that is not all. Geertz (1973) noted sarcastically that “in some twenty-seven pages of his chapter on the concept, Kluckhohn managed to define culture in turn as… [what follows is 11 different definitions]; and turning, perhaps in desperation, to similes, as a map, as a sieve, and as a matrix” (p. 5). This lack of clarity and consensus about anthropologists’ main object of study may be one of the reasons that, in the words of Cochran and Harpending (2009), the social sciences—and especially anthropology—“haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory” (p. ix).² It also explains why to many researchers and practitioners, culture is “the c-word, mysterious, frightening and to be avoided” (Berry, 1997, p. 144). Some have even denied the utility of the concept (Barber, 2008b).

At the other extreme is a well-known simple and narrow definition: Culture is shared mental software, “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede, 2001). The group or category can be a national society but Hofstede believes that his definition applies also to other collectives, such as regions, ethnicities, occupations, organizations, or even age groups and genders.

According to Jahoda (1984), “culture” is the most elusive term in the vocabulary of the social sciences and the number of books devoted to the topic would fill many library shelves. A practical solution was proposed by Segall (1984), who believed that it was not worth the effort to enhance the concept’s clarity or attempt to articulate a universally acceptable definition. In his view, cultural analysts should abandon the struggle to conceptualize culture. Instead, they should “turn to the real business at hand,” which is to “intensify the search for whatever ecological, sociological and cultural variables might link with established variations in human behavior” (p. 154).

Segall’s call for pragmatism in cross-cultural analysis is laudable. Theoretical debates about the meaning that “should” be attributed to the concept of culture are pointless. There is no absolute reason why one abstract theoretical concept of it should be better than another. However, disagreements have been voiced not only with respect to abstract definitions of culture but also concerning specific matters, such as whether artifacts should or should not be considered part of culture (see the debate between Jahoda, 1984, and Rohner, 1984). The answer to a question of this kind can have practical consequences: It may determine what should or should not be studied for the purpose of a dissertation on culture or be published in a journal devoted to culture.

Culture can be pragmatically defined by the contents and boundaries of the interests of the scholars who study it. Even better, we should look at what is in the focus of their interests. A culturologist may study climatic differences (for instance, van de Vliert, 2009), although climate is unlikely to be viewed by anybody as part of culture. Yet, that researcher would not be interested in climate per se, but in how it affects variation in values, beliefs, and behaviors, which could be considered elements or expressions of culture.

Defining the contents and boundaries of culture may also be necessary for the purposes of clarity and avoidance of confusing statements. According to Jahoda (1984), if culture is seen as including behaviors, it is incorrect to say that culture causes behavior because that would be a circular explanation. Likewise, Fischer and Schwartz (2011) discuss the question of whether culture determines values. This makes sense only if values are not viewed as part of culture; otherwise the debate would be like the question of whether light produces photons.

Therefore, it might be useful that those who present cultural analyses explain how they conceptualize culture, specifying its contents and boundaries. This could help avoid a situation described by Child (1981), who pointed out that there is a danger of inferring culture as a national phenomenon from virtually any contrasts that emerge from a comparison of organizations in different countries: “Even if such contrasts are unambiguously national in scope, they could possibly be due to other non-cultural phenomena such as national wealth, level of industrialization, or even climate” (p. 328).

A comment by Fischer (2009) illustrates another practical reason to define culture. In his view, if researchers do not focus on the shared aspect of culture (see 2.1.), there is no need to investigate agreement among the members of a national culture who provide information to a researcher. But if one adopts a definition of culture in which sharedness is emphasized, such an investigation becomes necessary.

Leung and van de Vijver (2008) discuss two approaches to culture: holistic and causal. The first approach is taken by those who view culture as consisting of inseparable phenomena that cannot cause each other. Those who prefer the second approach may say that one cultural characteristic shapes another. If this is so, cultural researchers may need to explain how they conceive of culture: holistically or causally.

There are also other reasons for defining culture. Some methodologists working in the domain of cross-cultural psychology have treated culture as a variable resembling some kind of noise that needs to be reduced or eliminated. Poortinga and van de Vijver (1987) suggested a procedure for explaining measured differences between societies by introducing various relevant variables, each of which explains part of the observed variance, until the effect of culture disappears: “The consequence of our argument is that a cross-cultural psychologist is not interested in the variable culture per se, but only in specific context variables that can explain observed differences on some dependent variable” (p. 272), and “In the ideal study the set of context variables will be chosen in such a way that the remaining effect for culture will be zero” (p. 272). This begs the question of what variables can explain differences between groups of people but are not part of their cultures.³

Some of the clearly external variables with respect to culture—also known as “exogenous” or “extraneous”—are climate, geographic location, and pathogen prevalence. But what about national wealth, main type of economy, or degree of democracy? Are these cultural variables or not? According to van de Vijver and Leung (1997a), gross national product, educational systems, and even health care institutions are culture-related variables (p. 4). Is this position acceptable? Javidan and Houser (2004) describe two possible views: that a society’s wealth should not be confused with its culture and that wealth is an integral part of its culture. The position that we adopt may determine our research methodology. If wealth is an extraneous variable, a researcher may decide to partial it out of cultural measures using statistical tools. If wealth is viewed as an integral part of culture, there is no need to control for it when cultural variables and the relationships between them are measured. Thus, the solution is a matter of subjective choice.

1.3. Culture As Is Versus Culture As It Would Be

---

Further to the previous point, Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, and Benet-Martinez (2007) indicate that studies of Big Five personality traits usually correct for age and gender differences. Hofstede (2001) reports raw dimension indices as well as indices after correcting for age. Are such operations logical?

In cross-cultural analysis, data that are adjusted in this way are not more correct than raw data. They simply provide a different image of a particular culture: how it would look if certain conditions changed. Imagine that we are comparing nation A and nation B on “thrift” as a value. We find that people in A value thrift more. However, we also find that people in A are older and that older people are thriftier in principle. If age is controlled for, the thrift-related differences between the two nations disappear. What should our conclusion be? Should we categorize nation A as having a thriftier national culture? Or should we say that it exhibits the characteristics of age culture, not national culture, because if its members were younger they would be more profligate?

The answer depends on how we prefer to view and compare cultures. We can look at actual snapshots of them, reflecting their real characteristics at a specific point in time. Alternatively, we can choose to work with hypothetical constructs: cultures as they would be under certain hypothetical conditions that may become real some day. For instance, if two societies have different demographic structures today, these differences might disappear in the future.

The first approach is the easier solution. The second may be attractive in some situations but it is less practical. Controlling for various variables by means of statistical tools does not guarantee that the statistically obtained situation depicts what we would observe in reality if culture A did not differ from culture B on the variable we have controlled for.

1.4. Classifications of the Concepts of Culture

---

Concepts of culture can fall into a number of different categories. These classifications cannot be easily contrasted in terms of good versus bad or true versus false. They simply reflect diverse perspectives, all of which may have some merits. Cultural analysts should decide which perspective best suits the purpose of their research and explain it to their audiences.

Singelis, Bond, Sharkey, and Lai (1999) described two types of culture: residing inside individuals and outside them. The first type is what Triandis (1972) called subjective culture or what Hofstede (2001) referred to as software of the human mind: beliefs, values, and internalized interaction patterns. The second type consists of the man-made environment and can include everything that people have created, including institutions and art.

Rohner (1984) discusses two other distinctions in the conceptualization of culture. First, there is a contrast between culture as a system of behaviors versus culture as a set of meanings. Second, there are scholars, called realists, who attribute an independent existence to culture, versus others, called nominalists, who view it as a subjective human construct.

Because these categories are not easy to grasp, they require special attention.

1.4.1. SUBJECTIVE CULTURE: MENTAL SOFTWARE

Subjective culture is viewed as something invisible that resides in people’s minds. In his 1980 book, Geert Hofstede introduced his metaphor of culture as mental programming or software of the mind. However, Hofstede (2001) noted that not all elements of collective mental programming should be viewed as culture. For instance, collective and individual identities may not be classifiable as cultural elements. They provide an answer to the question “Where do I belong” (p. 10) or “Who/what are we?” and “Who/what am I?” According to Hofstede (2001), populations that share similar cultural values may sometimes fight each other if they have adopted different identities. It may also be useful to distinguish religious denominations (and thus religious identities) from cultures. This point will be discussed in 2.6.3.

1...