ATestoftheValidityofHofstedesCultural-Hofstede

1、A TEST OF THE VALIDITY OF HOFSTEDE S CULTURAL DIMENSIONSJeffrey G. Blodgett, University of Illinois at Springfield Gregory M. Rose, University of Washington at Tacoma Linda M. Horton, University of Akron Aysen Bakir, Illinois State UniversityAbstractThis study examines the reliability andvalidity of

2、 Hofstedes cultural framework, when appliedat an individual level. The results demonstrate that the instrument lacks sufficient face validity for use at a micro-level of analysis.BackgroundOver the past two decades the majority of studies pertaining to cultural values have been influenced by the sem

3、inal work of Geert Hofstede. Since its publication in 1980, Hofstede s book Culture s Consequen: cInetsernational Differences in Work-Related Values has been translated in numerous languages, and was fully revised in 2001. De Cieri and Dowling (1995) noted that “The seminal work by Hofstede has insp

4、ired much of the c-crousltsural research activity since 1980 and has been the dominant research paradigm in cross-cultural studies of national attitudes for some time. ” “ There are almost no publications, either from the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, history, law, economics or business ad

5、ministration, that do not refer to Hofstede s worWhen explaining correspondences and distinctios between cultures”(IRIC, 2001). Redding (1994) stated that“Hofstede has inspired a great improvement in the discipline by specifying a theoretical model which serves to coordinate ersearch efforts. ”Hofst

6、ede s tcuural l framework was originally comprised of four dimensions: Individualism/ Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity/Femininity, and Power Distance.Individualists value independence, and tend to believe that personal goals and interests are more important than group interests (Hofs

7、tede 1980; Triandis 1995; Schwartz 1992). In contrast, collectivists tend to view themselves as members of an extended family or organization, and place group interests ahead of individual needs. Societies with higher levels of uncertainty avoidance feel a greater need for consensus and written rule

8、s, and are intolerant of deviations from the norm. In contrast, societies characterized by low uncertainty avoidance rely less on written rules and are more risk tolerant.In a masculine society individuals are more aggressive, ambitious, and competitive; whereas individuals in feminine societies are

9、 more modest, humble, and nurturing. Individuals in societies characterized by higher levels of power distance tend to follow formal codes of conduct, and are reluctant to disagree with superiors. Individuals in societies that are lower in power distance, on the other hand, do not feel as constraine

10、d by perceived or actual differences in status, power, or position.Applications of Hofstede s FrameworkHofstede s cultural framework has been applied in a wide variety of contexts, across most (if not all) of the behavioral science disciplines. For example, in the fields of management andmarketing,

11、Hofstede s fraewmork has been used to examine topics such as cross-cultural differences in attitudes and behaviors (Alden, Hoyer, and Lee 1993), organizational identification and employee turnover intentions (Abrams, Ando, and Hinkle 1998), and to compare stereotypes across different cultures (Souta

12、r, Grainger, and Hedges 1999). It has been applied in studies of advertising (McCarty and Hattwick 1992; Gregory and Munch 1997; Zandpour et al. 1994), global brand strategies (Roth 1995), and in ethical decision making (Vitell, Nwachukwu, and Barnes 1993; Blodgett et al. 2001).Validity ConcernsGive

13、n the pervasive influence of Hofstede s work across the academic community, and theplethora of findings, implications, and recommendations arising from these studies, it would be reasonable to assume that the validity of the cultural framework has been fully established. However, despite the many st

14、udies that have employeHd ofstede s framew,oirtkhas not been subjected to rigorous tests of reliability and validity (as per Churchill 1979 and Schwab 1980). This oversight is somewhat surprising, given that one of the foundations of the scientific method is that tests and measures be rigorously scr

15、utinized to ascertain their reliability and validity (see Cook and Campbell 1979). Perhaps it is becausHeofstede s cultural frameworksios appealing from a conceptual standpoint that its psychometric properties have received little scrutiny.Several studies, though, raise legitimate concerns about the

16、 empirical validity oHf ofstede s framework. Soondergaard (1994), for example, conducted an extensive analysis of those studies that have attempted to validate HofstedeIntseresteinagrclyh,.almost two-thirds of thesestudies found little or no support for Hofstede s cultural framewk.orStudies that hav

17、e focused on the individual dimensions of culture also cast doubt on the framework; some have found significant overlap among the various dimensions of culture (e.g., Bakir et al. 2000), and others have found the reliability of some of the dimensions to be low (Kagitcibasi 1994). Together, these fin

18、dings highlight the need for investigations of the validity of the cultural framework.Purpose of this StudyThe objective of this study was to examineHofstede s frawmoerk in order to assess the validity of the cultural dimensions when applied at theindividual level. Acknowledging that previous critiq

19、ues of Hofstede s cultural framework have sparked much passion and controversy (e.g.,Trompenaars 1993; Hofstede 1996, 1997; Hamden-Turner & Trompenaars 1997), the goal of this assessment was to provide information in order to build upon and improve the cultural framework, and thus advance future sci

20、entific inquiries.Before embarking on this investigation it should be noted that Hofstede developed the cultural framework for macro, national level analyses. Hofstede s objective was to describe and comstable, systematic differences in values and attitudes across nations and their peoples in genera

21、l.He readily acknowledged the distinction betweenwithin-culture and between-cultureanalyses, and noted that his instrument was not designed to measure and compare cultural differences at a micro, individual level. With this caveat in mind, one should not expect that Hofstede s instrument would be as

22、 well suited for use at an individual level as is common in studies of marketing and consumer behavior as compared to an aggregate, national level. Over the years, though, many researchers seem to have overlooked this distinction, and have modeled thevarious dimensions of culture as determinates of

23、individual perceptions and behaviors. It is not clear, however, that Hofstede s instrument meets commonly accepted standards for reliabilityand validity (Churchill 1979; Cook and Campbell 1979; Schwab 1980), such that its use at the individual level of analysis is warranted.MethodologyIn order to ex

24、amine the facevalidity of Hofstede s cultural framneweoxrpkloaratory study wasconducted. Subjects were asked to reviewHofstede s-i3te2m cultural scale and to classify the items accordingly; indicating which dimension each particular item was intended to measure.The items were obtained fromCulture s

25、Consequen(cHeosfstede, 1980), and were presented in their original form. The study was conducted across two different samples. The first sample consisted of 123 undergraduate students from a university in the mid-south of the United States.The second sample consisted of 26 faculty and doctoral stude

26、nts in the behavioral sciences from the same institution.Undergraduate SampleThe undergraduate class performed the classification task after listening to a lecture regarding Hofstede s cultural dimensionTsh.e professor explained the concept of culture, and discussed each of its four dimensions. The

27、students were then given a questionnaire containing the set of items, along with written definitions of each of the four cultural dimensions. They were then instructed to indicate which dimension each item was attempting to measure (i.e., by circling “ID”, “MF”, “UA ”, or “PD”).As can be seen in Tab

28、le 1, the students correctly matched the various items to their corresponding dimensions only 32% of the time, on average. The individualism/collectivism items were correctly classified, on average, 46% of the time; the uncertainty avoidance and power distance items were correctly classified, on ave

29、rage, by 35% and 33% of the students; while the masculinity/femininity items were correctly classified, on average, only 15% of the time. Clearly, the low“ success rate ” of the undergraduate students indicates that the validity ofthe items is suspect. The lack of“ face valiodwityreliab”ilitys,igana

30、dlsisl problematic.Faculty and Doctoral Student SampleIn order to determine whether the low success rate was an artifact of the undergraduate student sample, a follow-up study was performed using a small group (26) of marketing and management faculty and doctoral students. Presumably, faculty and do

31、ctoral students in the behavioral sciences should be better equipped to discern the underlying dimension that each item is supposedly tapping into.Again, subjects were given the questionnaire, along with definitions of each dimension. On average, the faculty/doctoral student sample correctly matched

32、 the items to their corresponding dimensions only 44% of the time. The individualism/collectivism and power distance items were correctly classified, on average, by 52% and 50% of the respondent; while the uncertainty avoidance and masculinity/femininity items were correctly classified by only 45% a

33、nd 28% of the respondents. Although the faculty/doctoral student sample was better able to discern thecultural dimension underlying each item the success rate was gives cause for concern. Given that many authors cite Nunn ally (1973), who opined that 70% reliability is a mi ni mally acceptable sta n

34、dard in the early stages of con struct developme nt, a 44% success rate in dicates low reliability. Overall, give n the in ability of both samples to match the items to their correspondingdimensions, one must conclude that Hofstede s scale lacks sufficient face validityfor use at an in dividual leve

35、l.TABLE 1Face ValidityPercent Correctly ClassifiedScaleUndergraduateFaculty/DoctoralsamplesampleMasculi nity/Femi ninity15%28%In dividualism/Collectivism46%52%Power Dista nee33%50%Un certa inty Avoida nee35%45%Average32.3%44.3%Discussion and ConclusionThere is no doubt that the con cept of culture i

36、s legitimate. The authors comme nd Hofstede for his pion eeri ng work in this area, and for bringing the con cept of culture to the forefront of the various behavioral scie nee discipli nes. Culture is particularly releva nt in the con text of market ing and con sumer behavior. The issue, however, i

37、s how to best capture the con struct and its various dime nsions. As this research has dem on strated, measures that might be appropriate for macro-level comparis ons are not n ecessarily valid for use at an in dividual unit of an alysis. This paper presents evidenc that Hofstede cultusal scale lack

38、s sufficient face validity, and that its reliability is questionable. It is hoped that this work will eventually lead to more reliable and valid measures that capture the rich ness of the con struct and can be deployed at an in dividual level of analysis. It is well understood that in order to claim

39、 an association between any two con structs in terms of correlati on or causati on one must first prove that the corresp onding measures are valid. Accordi ngly, in order to claim an associati on betwee n any of the dime nsions of culture and a particular con sumer behavior (such as compla ining beh

40、avior) or attitud inal variable (such as materialism), one must first dem on strate that the cultural measure is in deed reliable and valid.ReferencesAbrams, D., K. Ando, and S. Hi nkle (1998),“ Psychological Attachme nt to the Group: CrossCultural Differe nces in Orga ni zati onal Ide ntificatio n

41、and Subjective Norms as Predictors ofWorkers Turnover IntentionsPersonaiity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (10), 1027-1040.Alde n, Dana L., Way ne D. Hoyer, and Chol Lee (1993), Ide ntifyi ng Global a nd CultureSpecific Dime nsions of Humor in Advertis ing. A Mult in ati on al An alysis, Journal

42、 of Market ing, 57 (April), 64-75.Bakir, Ayse n, Jeffrey G. Blodgett, Scott J. Vitell, and Gregory M. Rose (2000)“ A Prelimi narInvestigation of the Reliability and Validity of Hofstede s Cross Cultural Dimensions.Proceed ings for Academy of Marketi ng Scie nceMay 24-28, 2000. Mon treal, Quebec, Ca

43、nada.Blodgett, J.G., Lu, L.C., Rose, G.M., & Vitell, S.J. (2001).“ Ethical Sen sitivity to StakehoInterests: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Jo”rnal of the Academy of Marketing ScienceVol. 29, 2 (Spri ng), 190-202.Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1979),ParadigrihAor Developi ng better Measures of Marketi ngConstr

44、ucts, Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.Cook, T.D. and D.T. Campbell (1969), Quasi Experime ntati on: Desig n and An alysis Issues forField Setti ngs, Bost on: Hought on Mifflin Compa ny.De Cieri, H. & Dowli ng, P. J. (1995), Cross-cultural issues in orga ni zati onal behavior. I n

45、 Cooper,C. L. & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.), Trends in orga ni zati onal behavior. West Sussex, En gla nd: Joh n Wiley & Sons.Gregory, G.D. and J.M. Mu nch (1997),“ Cultalue Vin In ternatio nal Advertisi ng: AnExam in ati on of Familial Norms and Roles in Mexico, Psychologya nd Marketi ng, 14 (2), 99119.

46、Hampde n-Tur ner, C. and F. Trompe naars (197),“ Resp onse to Geert Hofstedeter nati6 nalJournal of In tercultural Relatio ns, 21 (1), 149-159.Hofstede, G. (1980),Culture s consequences: International differences in work related values Thousa nd Oaks, CA: Sage Publicati ons, Inc.Hofstede, G.(1996),

47、Riding the waves of commerce: A test of Trompenaars“Model” ofnational cultural differences, Inter”ational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(2), 189-198.Hofstede, G.(1997), Riding the Waves: A Rejoinder. International Journal of Intercultural Relatio ns, 21 (2), 287-290.Hofstede, G. (2001),Cultu

48、re s Consequences: InOeonal Differences in Work Related Values 2001 edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation. (2001), Europeans in the 2000 Social Science Citation Index Online, http:/cwis.kub.nl/fsw_2/iric/index2.htm.Kagitcibasi, C. (199

49、4), Individualism and Collectivism. IN Kim, U., H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi, and G. Yoon (Eds.),Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.McCarty, J.A. and P.M. Hattwick (1992),“ Cultural VarliueentOations: A Comparison ofMagazine Advertisements from the United States and Mexico, Advances in”Consumer Researc,h 19, 34-38.ndNunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.R