Hofstede’s “long-term orientation” (LTO) may be one of the most important dimensions of national culture, as it highlights differences on a continuum from East Asia to Africa and Latin America, strongly associated with differences in educational achievement. However, LTO’s structure lacks theoretical coherence. We show that a statistically similar, and theoretically more focused and coherent, dimension of national culture, called “flexibility versus monumentalism,” or vice versa, can be extracted from national differences in self-enhancement and self-stability or self-consistency, as well as a willingness to help people. Using data from nearly 53,000 respondents recruited probabilistically from 54 countries, we provide a new national flexibility-versus-monumentalism index that measures key cultural differences on the world’s East–West geographic axis and predicts educational achievement better than LTO or any other known dimension of national culture.
AshkanasyN.GuptaV.MayfieldM. S.Trevor-RobertsE. (2004). Future orientation. In HouseR. J.HangesP. J.MansourJ.DorfmanP. W.GuptaV. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 282-342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
BlackwellL. S.TrzesniewskiK. H.DweckC. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246-263.
3.
Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164.
4.
FangT. (2003). A critique of Hofstede’s fifth national culture dimension. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 3, 347-368.
5.
GelfandM.BhawukD.NishiiL. H.BechtoldD. (2004). Individualism and collectivism. In HouseR. J.HangesP. J.JavidanM.DorfmanP. W.GuptaV. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 437-512). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
GreenE. G. T.DeschampsJ. C.PaezD. (2005). Variation of individualism and collectivism within and between 20 countries: A typological analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 321-339.
7.
GreenJ. D.PinterB.SedikidesC. (2005). Mnemic neglect and self-threat: Trait modifiability moderates self-protection. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 225-235.
8.
HeineS. J. (2003). An exploration of cultural variation in self-enhancing and self-improving motivations. In Murphy-BermanV.BermanJ. J. (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on the self (Vol. 49, pp. 101-128). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
9.
HeineS. J.HamamuraT. (2007). In search of East Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 4-27.
10.
HeineS. J.LehmanD. R.PengK.GreenholtzJ. (2002). What is wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales: The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903-918.
11.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
KimY. H.PenChiuC.Y. (2008). Explaining self-esteem differences between Chinese and North Americans: Dialectical self (vs self-consistency) or lack of positive self-regard. Self and Identity, 7(2), 113-128.
13.
LeeR. B. (1979). The !Kung San: Men, women, and work in a foraging society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
LoughnanS.KuppensP.AllikJ.BalazsK.de LemusS.DumontK.. . . HaslamN. (2011). Economic inequality is linked to biased self-perception. Psychological Science, 22, 1254-1258.
15.
MinkovM. (2008). Self-enhancement and self-stability predict school achievement at the national level. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 172-196.
16.
MinkovM. (2011). Cultural differences in a globalizing world. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
17.
MinkovM. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis: The science and art of comparing the world’s modern societies and their cultures (with contributions by Geert Hofstede). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
MinkovM. (2017). Middle responding: An unobtrusive measure of national cognitive ability and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 187-192.
19.
MinkovM.HofstedeG. (2012). Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence from the World Values Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 3-14.
20.
MuellerC. M.DweckC. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
21.
MullisI. V. S.MartinM. O.FoyP.AroraA. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center.
22.
MullisI. V. S.MartinM. O.FoyP.HooperM. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center.
SchmittD. P.AllikJ. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 623-642.
26.
SchwartzS. H. (2008). Cultural value orientations: Nature and implications of national differences. Moscow, Russia: State University—Higher School of Economics Press.
27.
Van de Gaer GrisayA.SchulzW.GebhardtE. (2012). The reference group effect: An explanation of the paradoxical relationship between academic achievement and self-confidence across countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1205-1228.
28.
van WitteloostuijnA. (2016). What happened to Popperian falsification? Publishing neutral and negative findings: Moving away from biased publication practices. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23, 481-508.
29.
VignolesV. L.OweE.BeckerM.SmithP. B.EasterbrookM.GonzalezR.. . . BondM. H. (2016). Beyond the “East-West” dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 966-1000.
