Culture-Level Dimensions of Social Axioms and Their Correlates across 41 Cultures

Abstract

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:

The relationship between productive and counterproductive work behaviour across four European countries

“…Countries were chosen using the Social Axioms model (Bond et al, 2004) based on cultural level social axioms of Societal Cynicism (SC) and Dynamic Externality (DE). The researchers in the UK initially used the scatter plot of nations based on SC and DE provided by Bond et al, to identify countries within which to survey.…”

“…Little evidence exists on whether these findings are replicated in other countries. To assess if a similar pattern emerged, we used the Social Axioms model (Bond et al, 2004) as a cultural framework and surveyed employees in the UK (105), The Netherlands (203), Turkey (185) and Greece (70) on the relationship between OCB and CWB, and the relationship between these behaviours and personality, justice and commitment. Analysis supported a multidimensional structure to OCB and CWB and indicated a non-bipolar relationship between these behaviours.…”

“…In the current study, we have chosen to use the cultural level Social Axioms model (Bond et al, 2004) to select countries which differ in these beliefs. In this model, cultural level social axioms are distinguished on the basis of two dimensions:…”

Measuring cultural values at the individual-level: considering morality in cross-cultural value research

“…Most of the research has dealt with the concept of values to understand culture (EARLEY, 2006;BOND et al, 2004). This is probably due to the common understanding in the field that values are "among the building blocks of culture" (HOFSTEDE, 1980, p. 25).…”

“…SÃO PAULO, SP • MAI./JUN. 2009• p. 60-83 • ISSN 1678 The scepticism may be legitimate to the extent that most cross-cultural researchers define cultural values as a conception of "the desirable" (BRAITHWAITE; SCOTT, 1991), by describing them as "desirable transsituational goals" (SCHWARTZ, 1994, p. 21; see also KLUCKHOHN, 1951;FEATHER, 1996), but surprisingly take a rather asocial or acultural stance when measuring values through personal importance ratings of individuals. This approach assesses values as "the desired" or in other words what people personally want in their lives.…”