Are Different Two-Dimensional Models of Culture Just a Matter of Different Rotations? Evidence From the Analysis Based on the WVS/EVS

Abstract

There is a need for a simple and graspable model of culture covering the main cultural differences across modern nations. A two-dimensional model might be a reasonable choice. We analyzed data from the World Values Survey and the European Values Study to test whether different two-dimensional models are factor rotations of each other. We took into account criticisms regarding the choice of items in Inglehart’s analysis of the same data source. Nevertheless, we replicated his dimensions. By means of factor rotation by various angles we aligned our dimensions and those of Inglehart with other previously published sets of dimensions. Thus, although different studies seem to have produced different two-dimensional solutions depending on the study design, those solutions are actually related to each other. There is no right or wrong placement of axes—they describe the same relationships between cultural elements. By showing the positions of various sets of cultural dimensions relative to each other, this study adds another viewpoint that can help researchers make sense of the huge variety of cultural dimensions in the literature.

Two-Dimensional Models of Cultural Differences: Statistical and Theoretical Analysis

“…A statistical analysis of major published cultural variables revealed that the variables are dominated by two factors that are reflected in most studies of cultural differences, though rotated differently in each study (Fog, 2021). This finding is confirmed by another study based on primary data rather than published variables and factors (Kaasa & Minkov, 2022).…”

“…We may ask if there is a right or optimal rotation angle for the factors. Kaasa and Minkov (2022) say that the rotation is arbitrary, but these authors are in fact relying on Minkov’s revised model (Minkov & Kaasa, 2021), which is a two-dimensional model that aligns almost perfectly with the F1 and F2 dimensions of the present study. The rotation is not arbitrary if we are seeking theoretical explanations for the relationship between different cultural variables.…”

“…A subject of recent debate is how many factors are needed to adequately describe cultural differences (Kaasa & Minkov, 2022). Some early studies have reported a large number of cultural variables (Schwartz, 1994; House et al, 2004), while later influential studies have reduced the variables to two factors (Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005; Welzel, 2013).…”

Complexifying Individualism Versus Collectivism and West Versus East: Exploring Global Diversity in Perspectives on Self and Other in the Gallup World Poll

“…Related to this complexification of IvC are calls for the field to move “beyond” IvC by investigating how this binary intersects with other factors (e.g., Montuori & Purser, 2000; Oyserman et al, 2002; Sztompka, 2014; Turiel, 2004; Zabel, 2015). In that respect, Kaasa and Minkov (2022) argue for the general value and desirability of “two dimensional” models for understanding and differentiating cultures (as opposed to more complex multidimensional arrangements). Thus, taking IvC as one dimension, scholars have explored how it intersects with various other second dimensions.…”

Conceptual and methodological issues in the study of the personality-and-culture relationship

“…Although researchers of culture have not yet reached agreement on what dimensions provide the best description of culture ( Beugelsdijk and Welzel, 2018 ; Minkov, 2018 ; Kaasa and Minkov, 2022 ), no one seems to question that a relatively small number of abstract and directly unobservable factors are the best descriptors of cultural diversity. If the goal is to understand something substantial about the relationship between culture and personality, then it is necessary to concentrate on the underlying dimensions rather than an endless number of small details.…”