Construct · 4 names · 5 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one name, four frameworks Nearest construct by meaningculturecompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to national culture is culture.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
National culture as the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one nation from another, operationalized as a set of value dimensions on which each country receives a score. Hofstede derived the first four, power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, and uncertainty avoidance, from a factor analysis of employee value surveys collected within IBM across some forty countries, and added long-term orientation with Bond and indulgence versus restraint with Minkov in later editions. The dimensions are properties of countries, not of individuals: the scores are means of survey responses aggregated to the national level, and Hofstede warned that reading an individual's values off a country score is an ecological fallacy. The instrument is a value survey, what respondents say they consider important, not a record of behaviour. Its country rankings are the reference against which the other frameworks on this map define themselves.[1][2]
National culture measured on nine dimensions, each assessed twice, once as practices, how things are done in the society, and once as values, how respondents think things should be done. House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta built the framework across 62 societies, expanding Hofstede's set to nine dimensions, including performance orientation, future orientation, assertiveness, and gender egalitarianism, and splitting collectivism into institutional and in-group forms. The practices-and-values distinction is the project's central methodological claim against Hofstede: the two often correlate negatively within a dimension, so a single value score cannot stand for a society's culture. GLOBE was designed as a direct challenge to Hofstede's approach, and Hofstede and House exchanged pointed critiques over whether the value items measure culture or the perceived absence of a practice. A society therefore carries eighteen scores here, not one profile, and they are not interchangeable with Hofstede's indices.[3]
National culture as seven value orientations arranged on three bipolar dimensions: embeddedness versus autonomy, the autonomy pole splitting further into intellectual and affective autonomy, hierarchy versus egalitarianism, and mastery versus harmony. Schwartz derived the structure from the argument that every society confronts three universal problems, the relation of the person to the group, how to guarantee responsible conduct, and the relation of humankind to the natural world, and that cultures differ in the answers they institutionalize. Unlike Hofstede, who read dimensions off a factor analysis of survey responses, Schwartz specified the orientations in advance from theory and then tested their structure with the Schwartz Value Survey, administered mainly to schoolteachers and students. The orientations are country means and form a quasi-circumplex, so adjacent orientations are compatible and opposing ones conflict. The country rankings do not line up with Hofstede's or GLOBE's, and a score on autonomy is not a rescaling of individualism.[4]
National culture as seven dimensions along which societies resolve recurring dilemmas: universalism versus particularism, individualism versus communitarianism, specific versus diffuse involvement, neutral versus affective expression, achievement versus ascription of status, sequential versus synchronous time, and internal versus external control. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner drew the dimensions from Parsons and from Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck and populated them with a questionnaire of forced-choice business dilemmas administered to managers during consulting work. The instrument reports the percentage of respondents in each country choosing one horn of a dilemma, so a country's profile is a set of proportions rather than an index built from a factor model. The framework is widely used in management training and rarely subjected to the validation that Hofstede's and Schwartz's frameworks have received; independent attempts to replicate its factor structure have largely failed. Several of its labels, individualism above all, repeat words that Hofstede and Schwartz also use for different measurements.[5]
Next
See how national culture sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct