Rather, ecological variables are necessary to examine structural, contextual, and sociological effects on human behavior and disease development. Schwartz, 1994 b, p. 823 Many attempts have been made to define (e.g., Rohner, 1984) and then to measure culture. Given the classic definition of culture provided by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), this mapping has usually been made by using values. The most widely known value mapping is the work of Hofstede (1980), whose four value dimensions of Individualism-Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculinity-Femininity are used as organizing and explanatory constructs in many disciplines. Tapping values salient to Chinese people, the Chinese Culture Connection (1987) has identified one additional dimension to the Hofstede four: Confucian Work Dynamism, or short-term versus long-term orientation (Hofstede, 1991). All five dimensions of culture-level values have provided the conceptual impetus for numerous cross-cultural studies. Several major cross-cultural projects have been conducted subsequent to Hofstede's (1980) groundbreaking work. With his theory-derived value survey, Schwartz (1994 a) has identified seven culture-level dimensions, namely, Conservatism, Intellectual Autonomy, Affective Autonomy, Hierarchy, Egalitarian Commitment, Mastery, and Harmony. Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars (1996) have identified two reliable value dimensions at the cultural level from their analysis of managerial values: Egalitarian Commitment versus Conservatism, and Utilitarian Involvement versus Loyal Involvement. Smith and Bond (1998, Ch. 3) concluded that these different value surveys have produced convergent results, lending support to the validity of the cultural dimensions originally identified by Hofstede (1980). Recently, House and his associates (2003) have orchestrated a major project to identify cultural dimensions across 62 countries. A distinctive feature of this multicultural project is that values associated with leadership were measured concurrently with ideal and actual leadership behaviors. The House team has identified nine culture-level dimensions:

Downloaded from JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY Leung et al. / SOCIAL AXIOMSTo broaden our conceptual framework for understanding cultural differences, the present article reports two studies that examined whether pancultural dimensions based on general beliefs, or social axioms, can be identified in persons from five cultures. A Social Axioms Survey was constructed, based on both previous psychological research primarily in Europe and North America on beliefs and qualitative research conducted in Hong Kong and Venezuela. Factor analyses of these beliefs from student as well as adult samples revealed a pancultural, five-factor structure, with dimensions labeled as: cynicism, social complexity, reward for application, spirituality, and fate control. In the second study, this five-factor structure, with the possible exception of fate control, was replicated with college students from Japan, the United States, and Germany. The potential implications of a universal, five-factor structure of individual social beliefs were discussed, along with the relation of this structure to indigenous belief systems and to culture-level analyses.Culture has long been a fuzzy concept, and numerous attempts have been made to define and measure it (e.g., Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952;Rohner, 1984). The now-classic work of Hofstede (1980) on work-related values represented a major step forward in classifying cultures. For instance, individualism-collectivism, one of his cultural dimensions, has been used to account for a wide range of cross-cultural similarities and differences among nations (e.g., Triandis, 1995). Subsequently, several major projects have adopted a similar approach in the search of cultural dimensions. Using values salient to the Chinese people, the Chinese Culture Connection (1987) identified one additional dimension that Hofstede (1980) did not capture, Confucian work dynamism, or short-term versus long-term orientation (Hofstede, 1991). Schwartz (1994) has established a more psychologically grounded mapping of cultures with seven cultural-level value dimensions. Finally, Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars 286 AUTHORS' NOTE: We would like to thank Shalom Schwartz, Karen Phalet, and the reviewers for their highly valuable comments. Downloaded from (1996) identified three major value dimensions at the cultural level. Smith and Bond (1998, chap. 3) concluded that these different surveys produced converging results despite differences in instrumentation, subject populations, and time periods during which the data were collected.The value-based approaches to culture described above have all been pitched at the national level. However, both Schwartz (1992) and Bond (1988) have provided value-based approaches to cultural differences pitched at the individual level of analysis. That is, the domains or dimensions along which people from different nations may be compared in their studies were derived by analyzing the data in ways that adduce individual-level constructs, thereby enabling researchers to compare people rather than...

No abstract