Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What The People Do If They Were Rich Hofstede Analysis
What The People Do If They Were Rich Hofstede Analysis
www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-5794.htm
What people
What would people do with their would do with
money if they were rich? their money if
they were rich
A search for Hofstede dimensions
across 52 countries 93
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test the replicability of Hofstede’s value-based dimensions –
masculinity–femininity (MAS–FEM) and individualism–collectivism (IDV–COLL) – in the field of consumer
behavior, and to compare cultural prioritizations with respect to disposable income budgets across the world.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors asked 51,529 probabilistically selected respondents in 52
countries (50 nationally representative consumer panels and community samples from another two countries)
what they would do with their money if they were rich. The questionnaire items targeted Hofstede’s MAS–
FEM and IDV–COLL as well as a wider range of options deemed sufficiently meaningful, ethical and moral
across the world.
Findings – The authors obtained two main dimensions. The first contrasts self-enhancing and altruistic
choices (status and power-seeking spending vs donating for healthcare) and is conceptually similar to
MAS–FEM. However, it is statistically related to Hofstede’s fifth dimension, or monumentalism–flexibility
(MON–FLX), not to MAS–FEM. The second dimension contrasts conservative-collectivist choices and
modern-hedonistic concerns (donating for religion and sports vs preserving nature and travel abroad for
pleasure) and is a variant of COLL–IDV.
Research limitations/implications – The authors left out various potential consumer choices as they were
deemed culturally incomparable or unacceptable in some societies. Nevertheless, the findings paint a sufficiently
rich image of worldwide value differences underpinning idealized consumer behavior prioritizations.
Practical implications – The study could be useful to international marketing and consumer behavior experts.
Social implications – The study contributes to the understanding of modern cultural differences across
the world.
Originality/value – This is the first large cross-cultural study that reveals differences in values through Cross Cultural & Strategic
a novel approach: prioritizations of consumer choices. It enriches the understanding of IDV–COLL and Management
Vol. 26 No. 1, 2019
MON–FLX, and, in particular, of the value prioritizations of the East Asian nations. The study provides pp. 93-116
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5794
The data collection for this study was financially supported by MediaCom Ltd. DOI 10.1108/CCSM-11-2018-0193
CCSM new evidence that Hofstede’s MAS–FEM is a peculiarity of his IBM database with no societal analogue.
Some of the so-called MAS–FEM values are components of MON–FLX, which is statistically unrelated
26,1 to Hofstede’s MAS–FEM.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Collectivism/Individualism,
Masculinity/Femininity, Monumentalism/Flexibility
Paper type Research paper
94 Introduction
Approaches to the study of values in the cross-cultural literature
Large-scale studies of national culture have often focused on values, although their
approaches have been different. Schwartz (1994, 2008a) defined values as trans-situational
goals and operationalized them in terms of items that ask respondents what is important in
their own lives. Hofstede (2001) used a more situational approach: he focused on personal
work-related goals in a specific multinational company, believing that these goals would
reflect societal values. Project GLOBE (House et al., 2004) operationalized values in an
unusual way: not as personal goals but as ideologies about desirable behaviors or
personality traits that all people in society should ideally share. Two other approaches are
worth mentioning, too. Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (2018) and
Minkov et al. (2017) analyzed national cultures through self-construals. Many of these
obviously reflect personal values. For instance, respondents who select a statement such as
“I like to help people” evidently value helping, whereas those who choose “I am a very
religious person” certainly value religion. There is yet another approach to the study of
national values, pioneered by the World Values Survey, subsequently developed by Minkov,
Dutt, Schachner, Jandosova, Khassenbekov, Morales et al. (2018), asking the respondents to
describe the values and desirable traits that they wish to inculcate in their children.
A brief overview of MAS–FEM theory and the analysis through which it was created
In this section, we briefly explain Hofstede’s MAS–FEM theory as it provided a foundation
for our study. That theory was derived from an empirical study of work goals across the
national subsidiaries of the IBM company around 1970. Subsequently, it was extrapolated to
the level of whole societies, based on Hofstede’s assumption that the IBM differences mirror
national differences.
Hofstede factor-analyzed 14 work goals in the IBM survey. It is important to note that
before the analysis the scores were ipsatized: a procedure that transforms raw scores into
prioritizations. In our study, we used a procedure that amounts to ipsatization and thus
preserved the spirit in which MAS–FEM was created. Without ipsatization, it may be
impossible to replicate MAS–FEM because ipsatization may produce effects that are not
observed when raw scores are used. In particular, ipsatization may transform positively
correlated items into negatively correlated opposites. For example, without ipsatization
MAS and FEM goals and values are not opposites.
Hofstede’s analysis produced an IDV–COLL factor and a MAS–FEM factor. The
simultaneous emergence of these two dimensions in the same factor analysis is also
noteworthy, especially in view of the fact that some items cross-loaded. In other words, they
were associated with both dimensions. When this is the case, it may be impossible to get a
very close replication of either factor on its own if one factor-analyzed only the items with
high loadings on a particular factor. In other words, IDV–COLL and MAS–FEM are like
conjoint twins that may not be able to exist separately in the exact form in which they were
created. In fact, there exist replications of IDV–COLL that did not include MAS–FEM items
in the analysis (although none of them are very close to Hofstede’s IDV–COLL version) but
there are no replications of MAS–FEM at all. It is possible to speculate that one reason
for this failure may be the fact that Hofstede’s procedure, combining IDV–COLL and
MAS–FEM items in the same factor analysis, has never been followed. The findings of our
study, however, demonstrate that we did follow the spirit of Hofstede’s procedure.
The MAS–FEM factor in Hofstede’s analysis consisted mainly of importance of earnings,
recognition and advancement (MAS goals) vs importance of good relationships with one’s
manager and cooperation with one’s colleagues (FEM goals). Of note, Hofstede (2001) saw the
MAS pole of the dimension as associated with self-enhancement, because earnings, recognition
and advancement boost one’s ego. Extrapolating his IBM work-goal findings to the level of What people
whole nations, he saw MAS societies as oriented toward competition and achievement. would do with
The latter needs to be advertised, hence a desire to display status symbols in MAS cultures. their money if
FEM societies downplay the importance of competition and achievement, and consequently of
status symbols. Instead, they value cooperation and good human relationships. they were rich
Criticisms of MAS–FEM 97
In his public appearances around the world, Hofstede has often spoken about the backlash
that the MAS and FEM labels have produced, especially in the English-speaking countries.
According to him, his terminology has been accused of reinforcing sexist stereotypes.
A terminology can easily be replaced if it offends somebody but an important question
would remain. Can Hofstede’s findings from his IBM study really be taken as representative
of whole societies? Minkov (2018) provided evidence from a number of studies and literature
reviews demonstrating quite clearly that the IBM database did not provide a close
representation of national cultural differences and was even very misleading in some cases.
For instance, male–female differences (or distances) in values were associated with
MAS–FEM differences in the IBM database: in more MAS countries, men’s and women’s
values differed more. Yet, Schwartz’s research and the World Values Survey show
unambiguously that these differences are not a function of MAS–FEM but of national
wealth, IDV–COLL and emancipation, which are unrelated to MAS–FEM (Minkov, 2018). In
wealthier, IDV countries, the self-reports of men and women produce larger differences in
values and personality traits between the genders, probably because the pressure for
conformism and cultural uniformity is lower than in COLL countries.
Minkov (2018) also provided primary data from a large cross-cultural study that analyzes
MAS and FEM self-construals, such as a desire to achieve fame and a desire to compete
(supposedly MAS traits as men are indeed more likely than women to describe themselves in
that way) vs a desire to help people (supposedly a FEM trait as women have a greater
tendency than men to report it). The analysis – with ipsatization or without it – did not
replicate MAS–FEM. Instead, these items were associated with IDV–COLL or MON–FLX, a
variant of Hofstede’s LTO dimension, described in the next section. However, Minkov’s (2018)
analysis simply examines associations between new measures of MAS–FEM items and the
old MAS–FEM index, without attempting to imitate Hofstede’s factor analysis, separating the
IDV–COLL variance from the MAS–FEM variance. The present study follows Hofstede’s
procedure more convincingly.
Method
Questionnaire design
The questionnaire for this study was developed by the first author with the help of
consumer behavior and marketing research executives, such as the second author, and
consultants associated with MediaCom Ltd, a leading multinational media agency, which
also provided funding for this project. The questionnaire was tested and discussed with
consumer panels in the USA and Singapore. Preliminary versions were also fielded in
Kazakhstan and some Latin American countries. These consultations resulted in many
changes in the wordings of various original items and even item replacements.
As we were interested in the Hofstede model of national culture, our questionnaire design
started from a theoretical approach in an attempt to recreate Hofstede’s two original value
dimensions – IDV–COLL and MAS–FEM – which he obtained in the same factor analysis.
Following Hofstede’s (2001) theory, we assumed that people in so-called MAS societies
would value exhibition of personal wealth and competition for power. Therefore, they might
be likely to spend money on expensive products or lavish parties, as well as on seeking
political power. They might also be inclined to invest in business so as to earn even more
money. People in so-called FEM societies, which supposedly socialize for compassion and
concern for the environment, would be more likely to donate to hospitals and to the poor, as
well as for the preservation of nature. If people in MAS societies have an inclination to
donate at all, they might donate for the development of sports, since MAS involves approval
of competitions. Another cause for which they might donate is religion as Hofstede (2001)
believed that MAS cultures value religion more than FEM ones. However, as we formulated
these theoretical expectations, we were mindful of other perspectives as well. For instance, What people
Minkov et al. (2017) demonstrated statistically that religiousness is a pillar of COLL, which would do with
is unrelated to the MAS–FEM dimension, whereas Soyez (2012) found that an eco-friendly their money if
orientation is typical of IDV societies and is therefore unlikely to be associated with the
MAS–FEM dimension. It is also possible to theorize that donating for the development of they were rich
sports would be typical of COLL societies as sports boost group identities and collective
pride, or of MON because it is associated with a desire to compete. The analysis of our data 99
should resolve some of these controversies.
In addition to our theoretical approach, we also wanted our questionnaire to contain a
concise summary of all main types of spending choices that affluent people across the world
could make, as long as these choices could be expressed in a way that people in all cultures
find familiar and acceptable, so that cross-cultural comparisons can be made. These two
requirements for the questionnaire items – familiarity and acceptability – severely restricted
our options. For example, drawing up a list of expensive leisurely activities that most
ordinary people in all modern societies would be familiar with, and might wish to participate
in, proved challenging. Thus, practicing expensive sports was ruled out as we were advised
by some consultants that there are hardly large percentages of ordinary people in some
countries that have a good concept of them, let alone dream of becoming golfers or
yachtsmen. An item that asked the respondents if they would use much of their money to
attract lovers was dropped after some respondents in the pilot test deemed it offensive and
ethically unacceptable. Despite our belief that it is important to assess how much people
value education for themselves, there is no such item in the questionnaire as we realized that
while a good education costs a lot of money in some countries, it is quite inexpensive in other
societies due to state subsidies. Therefore, it would be misleading to ask people from diverse
countries if they would spend a lot of disposable income on obtaining a good education for
themselves and use their answers to compare values.
The final questionnaire asks the respondents whether, if they felt rich, they would save
large amounts of their wealth for bad times in the future, invest a lot so as to earn even
more, spend large amounts on self-boosting activities (buying expensive objects), on
hedonistic activities (travel), on activities that may be self-boosting and hedonistic at the
same time (lavish parties) and on power-seeking activities, as well as whether they would
donate large amounts for the preservation of nature, for science, education or art, for
religion, for hospitals and for the poor. The questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1 at the
end of this paper.
The questionnaire was translated into local languages except in a few countries where
English is an official language, although not necessarily a native one: India, Kenya, Nigeria,
Singapore and South Africa. In those countries, the English original was fielded, as high
percentages of respondents have university degrees and consequently a very good
command of English.
Samples
Data for this study were available from 51,529 respondents from 52 countries. Appendices 2
and 3 provide information about the composition of the samples. In 50 of the 52 countries,
the samples are consumer panels regularly used by the marketing research company
Lightspeed (lightspeedresearch.com). They are recruited probabilistically from the
population of each country, in an effort to obtain panels that reflect the national census
in terms of ethnic composition, geographic origin, age, gender, education and type of
employment. Our samples in the wealthy nations are close to this target. In the developing
nations, it proved difficult to reach respondents without higher education; therefore, most
respondents are university educated. In all other respects, the samples in most of the
developing nations are close to the national census. However, in a few multi-ethnic countries,
CCSM such as South Africa, the sample composition does not correspond closely to that of the
26,1 census in terms of ethnicity. This underrepresentation of some ethnic groups may not
matter much in countries such as Turkey, where the main ethnicities (Turks and Kurds)
have co-existed for thousands of years and may not have dramatically different values
today. Yet, we found that the responses of black and white South Africans differ
substantially. Therefore, we decided to use only the black sample as blacks account for more
100 than 80 percent of South Africa’s population.
In two countries, the data were not collected by Lightspeed because that company does
not have panels there. In Kazakhstan, the data were collected in face-to-face interviews by
Sange Inc., a sociological research agency. The sample provides complete and accurate
national representation for the purpose of a project for the Government of Kazakhstan. In
Peru, the data were provided by a local research agency. The sample consists mainly of
educated large city dwellers from Lima, Arequipa and Trujillo.
In all countries, except Kazakhstan, the data were collected online.
After analyzing our data in different ways, across subsamples with and without higher
education, we found that education differences do not affect factor structures and country
rankings. Therefore, we report data from analyses of entire samples.
As a first step, we calculated the percentages of respondents in each country that
selected “yes [I would use my money in that way]” and the percentages of respondents who
selected “maybe.” Assuming a 50-percent chance that respondents who select “maybe” will
use their money in the indicated way and a 50 percent chance that they will not, we divided
the percentage of each nation’s “maybe” responses by two and added the result to the
percentage of “yes” responses. Thus, the formula that we used to calculate each nation’s
score on each item was: percentage “yes” + 0.5 × percentage “maybe.” As a result, each
nation’s score is an estimate of the percentage of respondents who are likely to use their
money in the indicated way.
Our next concern was response bias as it was clear that respondents in some nations,
particularly those of Africa and Latin America, had a pronounced tendency to choose “yes”
responses, a phenomenon known as yea-saying or acquiescence, discussed in multiple
studies (Harzing, 2006; He et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2005; Smith, 2004). Japanese
respondents exhibited the opposite tendency: to choose “no” regardless of the item content.
Taken at face value, both types of responses suggest unrealistic financial strategies. One is
unlikely at the same time to save, invest, spend and donate large amounts of one’s money for
very diverse causes. Also, it is impossible neither to save, nor to invest or spend. To obtain a
more realistic image of what a particular culture teaches people to do with their money, it is
necessary to assess how people collectively prioritize their financial strategies. In other
words, we need to understand the budget structure that a society as a whole would adopt.
This can be done by first adding up each nation’s scores on all items. That would
figuratively correspond to a nation’s total budget. Then, each raw item score is transformed
into a percentage of that budget. Statistically, when the raw scores are transformed in this
way, they are very similar to (in the sense of being strongly correlated with) ipsatized scores,
as used by Hofstede (2001) and Schwartz (1994, 2008a). Ipsatization, also known as
standardization within subject, is a calculation of the priority that a respondent or a whole
nation (depending on the level of analysis) ascribes to a particular value relative to other
values. Although its algorithm is different, the final result is very similar to a calculation of
percentages of a whole (the sum of all raw item scores) as performed in our study.
Results
A factor analysis across the 52 countries yielded four factors with eigenvalues over 1.00.
Yet, the eigenvalues of the third and fourth factors barely exceeded 1.00, and they explained
just a little more than 10 percent of variance each. Further, the fourth factor was defined
only by the item about donating to the poor. The third factor was defined by an What people
uninterpretable combination of items: donating for science and donating for sports vs would do with
saving. After dropping the item about donating to the poor and the one about donating for their money if
science, we obtained a fully interpretable two-factor structure with sufficiently high
loadings for all items. The two factors explained 70 percent of the variance. they were rich
We tried oblimin and promax rotations, with different κ and δ values, in order to obtain
moderately correlated factors as in Minkov (2018), who reported two main Hofstede 101
dimensions that are moderately correlated. However, all rotations yielded weakly correlated
factors. The highest correlation that we obtained was 0.34 after an oblimin rotation with the
δ value set at the highest possible level (0.8). We adopted that solution. Still, we note that all
other rotations yielded virtually identical factor structures and country positions. Therefore,
our findings would not have been substantially different if we had adopted a different type
of factor analysis. The adopted factor structure is provided in Table I. The two factors are
labeled altruism vs ego-boosting and hedonism vs conservatism. The term “egoism” for the
first factor was deliberately avoided as it tends to be equated with selfishness. However, a
willingness to give lavish parties does not suggest selfishness but an ambition to boost one’s
public image. The positive pole (corresponding to high scores) of the first factor could also
be called “ostentatiousness” as it reflects a desire to flaunt one’s wealth or an aspiration for
power, which also puts one in the public spotlight.
We provide country scores for the two dimensions in Tables II and III.
Figure 1 is a plot of the 52 countries on the two factors. Factor 2 scores were reversed by
multiplying them by −1, so as to align the corresponding axis with the North–South axis of
the Earth and with the IDV–COLL dimension whose scores descend from Northern Europe to
Africa and South Asia (Minkov et al., 2017). Figure 2 features the same plot but outlines eight
major cultural clusters. Essentially, Figures 1 and 2 are visualizations of Tables II and III. The
country plots are reminiscent of the geographic map of the world, as traditionally drawn in
European cartography, with the Americas to the West and East Asia to the East. The world
oceans are missing, which reflects the cultural proximity of parts of Southeast Asia, Africa
and Latin America, also known from other studies (Minkov et al., 2017; Minkov, Bond, Dutt,
Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., 2018, etc.). The resemblance between the real geographic
map of the world and the plots in Figures 1 and 2 demonstrates that our study has captured
some very real differences; otherwise it would be impossible to explain the geographic logic of
Figures 1 and 2. This validity criterion was borrowed from the work of Terracciano et al.
(2005) who argued that aggregate national measures of personality traits that do not yield
recognizable geographic patterns are illogical and must be flawed. Subsequently, Dobson and
Gelade (2012) showed that dimensions of national culture also have a tendency to yield
geographic patterns. This has been used as a criterion to decide whether a particular measure
reflects a valid dimension of national culture or not (Minkov et al., 2013).
The cultural clusters in Figure 2 were drawn following the tradition of Inglehart and Baker
(2000): they are not an outcome of a clustering analysis but an attempt to outline continents
Nigeria 250
What people
Kenya 190 would do with
South Africa 177 their money if
Indonesia 148
Thailand 146
they were rich
The Philippines 127
Kazakhstan 127
Venezuela 118 103
Vietnam 114
Malaysia 104
Turkey 104
India 98
China 84
Hong Kong 55
Peru 53
Singapore 50
Colombia 48
Chile 44
Mexico 27
Taiwan 24
Brazil 16
Serbia 7
Ukraine 6
USA 2
Argentina 2
Romania 1
Poland −3
Israel −8
Italy −19
Ireland −36
Russia −37
Hungary −40
Canada −51
New Zealand −57
Australia −62
South Korea −63
Germany −68
Japan −77
Portugal −77
UK −80
Austria −88
Greece −91
Norway −104
Czech Republic −105
Spain −106
The Netherlands −106 Table III.
Belgium −111 National scores for
Switzerland −120 52 countries on
France −128 Factor 2: conservatism
Finland −129 (high scores) vs
Sweden −170 hedonism (low scores)
Denmark −188 ( factor scores ×100)
and civilizational conglomerates, such as Latin America, Anglo countries and Chinese-
speaking countries. Inglehart borrowed this approach from the work of Samuel Huntington.
One could prefer an empirical analysis, yet clustering tools can yield fairly different results
with respect to some cases, depending on the methodology that one decides to adopt.
CCSM 200.00
Denmark
26,1
Sweden
Finland
Hedonism
Switzerland Belgium
France
Czech Republic Norway
100.00 Spain The Netherlands
Austria
Greece
104 Portugal
New Zealand
Australia
UK
Germany
Korea
Japan
Hungary Canada
Ireland
Russia
Israel Italy
Argentina
USA
0.00 Serbia
Romania
Poland
Brazil
Ukraine
Colombia Mexico Taiwan
Chile
Peru Singapore Hong Kong
India
Turkey
China
–100.00
Malaysia Vietnam
Venezuela
The Philippines Kazakhstan
Indonesia Thailand
Conservatism
South Africa
–200.00 Kenya
Figure 1. Nigeria
A plot of 52 countries
on the two factors –300.00
of national culture
–200.00 –100.00 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00
in this study
Altruism Ego-Boosting
Table IV provides validation for the Factors 1 and 2 scores through associations with
previously reported dimensions of national culture.
Table V provides evidence for some of the implications of the two factors. It shows how
they are associated with the results of a nationally representative study (International Social
Survey Program Research Group, 2009) of how often people attend sports events.
Discussion
Just like Hofstede’s analysis of 14 work goals, our 52-country study of 12 ways in which
people would use their disposable income yields two main dimensions of national culture,
underpinned by values. Conceptually, the first dimension resembles Hofstede’s MAS–FEM
as it contrast values that he considered MAS (status-seeking or ego-boosting) and values
that he considered FEM (compassion and maintenance of good human relationships).
Remarkably, we obtained this cultural contrast in a manner similar to Hofstede’s
statistical method. Like him, we did not analyze raw item scores but prioritizations: the
weights that a society ascribes to different types of values and the value ranking that these
weights produce.
However, the country index of this dimension is unrelated to Hofstede’s MAS–FEM. The
correlations that this dimension yields with previously reported dimensions in the literature
suggest unambiguously that it is yet another variant of MON–FLX (Minkov, Bond, Dutt,
Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., 2018), which is a reconceptualization of Confucian work
dynamism (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987) and LTO (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov and Hofstede,
2012). In other words, some of the values that Hofstede considered MAS, such as prioritization
of status-seeking or ego-boosting, are actually priorities in the FLX societies of East Asia, and,
200.00 What people
would do with
their money if
Hedonism
0.00
Latin America
Chinese
–100.00
South Asia
Conservatism
–200.00 Africa
Figure 2.
A plot of 52 countries
on the two factors of
national culture in this
–300.00
study, delineating
–200.00 –100.00 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00
major cultural clusters
Altruism Ego-Boosting
Factor 1 Factor 2
Dimensions of national culture (ego-boosting) (conservatism) n (countries)
to a lower extent, of some North European societies. Some of the values that Hofstede called
FEM, such as prioritizing compassion or altruism (being willing to donate for healthcare), are
actually priorities in MON societies. This is consistent with the findings of Minkov, Bond, Dutt,
Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al. (2018): helping is a key MON value.
CCSM The conceptual association between our first dimension, ego-boosting vs altruism and
26,1 FLX–MON or LTO may not be glaringly evident due to a lack of a full overlap of the facets of
these dimensions. Yet, some facets do converge. We find that thrift has a low priority in
altruistic societies (Africa and Latin America), apparently because these are also MON
societies, socializing for helping and sharing. Thrift has a high priority in self-boosting
societies (East Asia) because these socialize for financial independence and self-sufficiency
106 (Minkov, Bond, Dutt, Schachner, Morales, Sanchez et al., 2018; Minkov, Dutt, Schachner,
Jandosova, Khassenbekov, Morales et al., 2018). This finding is also consistent with Confucian
work dynamism or LTO theory, which describes thrift as a key prioritization in East Asia but
not in Africa and Latin America (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Minkov and Hofstede,
2012). Also, from the perspective of MON–FLX theory, thrift is a dialectical ability to suppress
one’s natural desires and adopt a behavior that does not conform to them.
The finding in our study that the FLX societies of East Asia prioritize ostentatious ego-
boosting spending did not astonish the marketing and consumer behavior experts that helped
us with our work. Yet, the geographic contrasts that emerge from our study are somewhat
surprising. According to Schwartz (2008a, b), power, wealth and success, which he called
hierarchy values, are prioritized in East Asia, indeed, but also in Africa. We find that the three
African nations in our study – Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa – attach a lower importance to
ostentatious ego-boosting, relative to other values. There can be different explanations for this
discrepancy. Obviously, how people prioritize values depends on what comparisons they are
asked to make. Schwartz’s study finds that Africans attach a higher importance to hierarchy
values relative to egalitarian values. We do not have egalitarian values in our questionnaire as
these cannot be easily expressed as consumer choices. Instead, we see that in Africa some
types of compassion, without a close equivalent in Schwartz’s instrument, are deemed more
important than ego-boosting. Alternatively, it is possible that a desire to achieve success and
wealth, which is what Schwartz measured, and a desire to flaunt one’s success and wealth,
which is what we measured, are two different phenomena.
Why is ostentatious ego-boosting prioritized in FLX societies? We cannot be sure as this
is a novel finding. We can only surmise that it may be a negative reaction to the existing
cultural tendency to enforce a low self-esteem. Vice versa, as people in MON societies tend to
have high self-esteem, they may not feel a need to prioritize ostentatious ego-boosting.
The finding that a prioritization of ego-boosting, corresponding to the FLX pole of the
MON–FLX dimension, is negatively associated with interest in sports, as evident from the
factor structure and from the correlations in Table V, is logical as sports have a strong
competitive element that appeals to MON cultures, whereas people in FLX cultures are more
likely to state that they do not like to compete. It is harder to explain why prioritization of
ego-boosting (and FLX) is associated with a low prioritization of investment in business.
Factor 1 Factor 2 n
Variables (ego-boosting) (conservatism) (countries)
References
Chinese Culture Connection (1987), “Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of
culture”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 143-164.
Crotts, J.C. and Erdman, R. (2000), “Does national culture influence consumers’ evaluation of travel
services? A test of Hofstede’s model of cross‐cultural differences”, Managing Service Quality,
Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 410-419.
De Mooij, M. and Hofstede, G. (2002), “Convergence and divergence in consumer behavior: implications
for international retailing”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 61-69.
Dobson, P. and Gelade, G.A. (2012), “Exploring the roots of culture using spatial autocorrelation”,
Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 160-187.
Dwyer, S., Mesak, H. and Hsu, M. (2005), “An exploratory examination of the influence of national
culture on cross-national product diffusion”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 1-27.
Gong, W. (2009), “National culture and global diffusion of business-to-consumer e-commerce”, Cross
Cultural Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 83-101.
Harzing, A.W. (2006), “Response styles in cross-national survey research: a 26-country study”,
International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 243-266.
CCSM He, J., Bartram, D., Inceoglu, I. and van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2014), “Response styles and personality traits:
26,1 a multilevel analysis”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 1028-1045.
Henry, W.A. (1976), “Cultural values do correlate with consumer behavior”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 121-127.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
108 House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds) (2004), Culture, Leadership,
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Inglehart, R. and Baker, W.E. (2000), “Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional
values”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 19-51.
International Social Survey Program Research Group (2009), “International Social Survey Program:
Leisure Time and Sports – ISSP 2007”, ZA4850 data file version 2.0, GESIS Data Archive,
Cologne, doi: 10.4232/1.10079.
Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y.I. and Shavitt, S. (2005), “The relation between culture and response styles:
evidence from 19 countries”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 264-277.
Kacen, J.J. and Lee, J.A. (2002), “The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Kluckhohn, C. (1967), “Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: an exploration in definition
and classification”, in Parsons, T. and Shils, E.A. (Eds), Toward a General Theory of Action,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 388-433.
Liu, R.R. and McClure, P. (2001), “Recognizing cross‐cultural differences in consumer complaint
behavior and intentions: an empirical examination”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 54-75.
Minkov, M. (2018), “A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: old evidence and new data from
56 countries”, Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 231-256.
Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G. (2012), “Hofstede’s fifth dimension; new evidence from the world values
survey”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Minkov, M., Blagoev, V. and Hofstede, G. (2013), “The boundaries of culture; do questions about
societal norms reveal cultural differences?”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 7,
pp. 1094-1106.
Minkov, M., Bond, M.H., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C.J., Jandosova, J.,
Khassenbekov, Y. and Mudd, B. (2018), “A reconsideration of Hofstede’s fifth dimension: new
flexibility versus monumentalism data from 54 countries”, Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 309-333.
Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y., Morales, O. and Sanchez, C.J.
(2018), “What values and traits do parents teach their children? New data from 54 countries”,
Comparative Sociology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 221-252.
Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Varma, T., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C.J. et al. (2017), “A revision of
Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: a new national index from a 56-country study”,
Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 386-404.
Moon, J., Chadee, D. and Tikoo, S. (2008), “Culture, product type, and price influences on consumer
purchase intention to buy personalized products online”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61
No. 1, pp. 31-39.
Pavlou, P.A. and Chai, L. (2002), “What drives electronic commerce across cultures? A cross-cultural
empirical investigation of the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 240-253.
Radojevic, T., Stanisic, N. and Stanic, N. (2017), “Inside the rating scores: a multilevel analysis of the
factors influencing customer satisfaction in the hotel industry”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 134-162.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values”, in Kim, U., What people
Kagitcibasi, C., Triandis, H.C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism: would do with
Theory, Method, and Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 85-119.
their money if
Schwartz, S.H. (2008a), Cultural Value Orientations: Nature and Implications of National Differences,
State University – Higher School of Economics Press, Moscow. they were rich
Schwartz, S.H. (2008b), “The seven Schwartz cultural value orientations for 80 countries”,
ResearchGate, available at: www.researchgate.net/publication/304715744_The_7_Schwartz_ 109
cultural_value_orientation_scores_for_80_countries (accessed September 2018).
Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (2001), “Value hierarchies across cultures: taking a similarities
perspective”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 268-290.
Smith, P.B. (2004), “Acquiescence response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style”, Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 50-61.
Soyez, K. (2012), “How national cultural values affect pro-environmental consumer behavior”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 623-646.
Swidler, A. (1986), “Culture in action: symbols and strategies”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 51
No. 2, pp. 273-286.
Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A.M., Adam, N., Adamovova, L., Ahn, C.K., Ahn, H.N. et al. (2005),
“National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures”, Science, Vol. 310
No. 5745, pp. 96-100.
Tung, R.L. and Stahl, G. (2018), “The tortuous evolution of the role of culture in IB research: What we
know, what we don’t know, and where we are headed”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 1167-1189.
Yeniyurt, S. and Townsend, J. (2003), “Does culture explain acceptance of new products in a country?
An empirical investigation”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 377-396.
Appendix 1. Questionnaire
If I were rich:
• VR1. I would spend much of my money on expensive things to show how successful I am.
• VR2. I would save much of my money for bad times in the future.
• VR3. I would spend much of my money on large and expensive parties and celebrations.
• VR4. I would donate much of my money to poor people.
• VR5. I would invest much of my money in business that will help me earn even more.
• VR6. I would donate much of my money for the development of science, education, or art.
• VR7. I would use much of my money to gain political power.
• VR8. I would use much of my money to travel and see the cultures, art, or nature of countries
on all continents.
• VR9. I would donate much of my money to preserve nature and wild animals.
• VR10. I would donate much of my money to promote some sports.
• VR11. I would donate much of my money to religious organizations.
• VR12. I would donate much of my money to hospitals or other health organizations.
The response options for all items are:
(1) Yes
(2) Maybe
(3) No
CCSM Appendix 2
26,1
Australia Unspecified B:
New South Wales ¼ 30%
Victoria ¼ 26%
Queensland ¼ 22%
Western Australia ¼ 9%
South Australia ¼ 8%
Capital Territory ¼ 2%
Tasmania ¼ 2%
Northern Territory ¼ 1%
Belgium Dutch ¼ 57% B:
French ¼ 38% Antwerp ¼ 15%
Arabic ¼ 1% East Flanders ¼ 14%
Turkish ¼ 1% Hainaut ¼ 14%
Other ¼ 3% Liege ¼ 12%
West Flanders ¼ 10%
Flemish Brabant ¼ 9%
Brussels ¼ 8%
Limburg ¼ 7%
Walloon Brabant ¼ 4%
Namur ¼ 4%
Luxemburg ¼ 3%
Brazil White ¼ 76% A:
Black ¼ 12% Sao Paolo ¼ 36%
Amerindian ¼ 1% Rio de Janeiro ¼ 19%
Mixed/Other ¼ 11% Rio Grande Sul ¼ 9%
Minas Gerais ¼ 8%
Parana ¼ 7%
Bahia ¼ 5%
Pernambuco ¼ 3%
Goias ¼ 3%
Other ¼ 10%
Canada Language: B:
English ¼ 72% Ontario ¼ 40%
French ¼ 28% Quebec ¼ 23%
Race/Ethnicity: Prairies ¼ 17%
White ¼ 79% British Columbia ¼ 12%
East Asian ¼ 9% Atlantic ¼ 9%
South Asian ¼ 4%
Black ¼ 3%
Other ¼ 5% Table AII.
China Unspecified A: Sample characteristics
Shanghai ¼ 19% in large or multi-
Guangdong ¼ 14% ethnic countries: self-
Beijing ¼ 12% reported race,
Hubei ¼ 7% ethnicity, or native
language and
geographic origin of
(continued ) the respondents
CCSM
26,1
Geographic origin
A: self-reported towns or regions where the
Self-reported race or ethnicity ( for respondents grew up until age 18 (%)
112 Canada, Belgium, India, Israel, the or
Philippines, Spain, Switzerland: language B: research agency data: towns or regions where
Country spoken at home as a child) (%) the respondents were recruited (%)
Sichuan ¼ 5%
Zhejiang ¼ 5%
Shandong ¼ 5%
Liaoning ¼ 4%
Fujian ¼ 3%
Anhui ¼ 3%
Henan ¼ 3%
Tianjin ¼ 3%
Hunan ¼ 2%
Jiangxi ¼ 2%
Other ¼ 4%
Colombia Unspecified A:
Bogota, Centro ¼ 53%
Medellin-Antioquia ¼ 17%
Cali, Pacifica ¼ 11%
Barranquilla, Caribe ¼ 10%
Oriente ¼ 4%
Other ¼ 5%
Egypt Unspecified A:
Cairo region ¼ 58%
Alexandria/Matrouh ¼ 21%
Sinai ¼ 19%
Other ¼ 2%
France Unspecified A:
Paris ¼ 21%
Nord ¼ 10%
Est ¼ 14%
Ouest ¼ 16%
Sud-Ouest ¼ 12%
Sud-Est ¼ 12%
Mediterranee ¼ 8%
Other ¼ 7%
Germany German ¼ 94% A:
Russian ¼ 2% West Germany ¼ 72%
Turkish ¼ 1% East Germany ¼ 22%
Other ¼ 3% Other ¼ 6%
India Hindi ¼ 33% A:
English ¼ 13% Delhi ¼ 15%
Tamil ¼ 10% Mumbai ¼ 14%
Bengali ¼ 8% Kolkata ¼ 8%
Telugu ¼ 7% Chennai ¼ 7%
Gujarati ¼ 6% Tamil Nadu ¼ 6%
Marathi ¼ 6% Bangalore ¼ 5%
Malayalam ¼ 5% Hyderabad ¼ 5%
Kannada ¼ 4% Uttar Pradesh ¼ 4%
Geographic origin
A: self-reported towns or regions where the
Self-reported race or ethnicity ( for respondents grew up until age 18 (%)
114 Canada, Belgium, India, Israel, the or
Philippines, Spain, Switzerland: language B: research agency data: towns or regions where
Country spoken at home as a child) (%) the respondents were recruited (%)
Corresponding author
Michael Minkov can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]