Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Recently Kaasa (2021) has developed a Cultural Models Synthesis Scheme (CMSS) merging together the cultural models of Hofstede, Schwartz and Inglehart. However, this theoretical framework still needs to be complemented by an empirical analysis. This exploratory study focuses on the Schwartz’s model using the ten-item battery in the World Values Survey (WVS) inspired by his questionnaire. We empirically position Schwartz’s items into the theoretical CMSS by the means of the empirical framework of Kaasa and Minkov (2022) that already includes Inglehart’s dimensions and Minkov’s (2018) revision of Hofstede’s model. The results support the placements of Schwartz’s dimensions in the CMSS. However, the results also show serious inconsistencies and contradictions regarding the keywords associated to some Schwartz’s dimensions. We highlight the need to be careful about which keywords and question wordings capture the core of those dimensions and to consider the accuracy of the names of dimension. We show that some keywords previously associated with a particular pole of the mastery versus harmony and hierarchy versus egalitarianism, might, in fact, tap aspects of the opposite pole. We also propose using the term ‘conformity’ instead of ‘harmony’. We conclude from these insights that cross-mapping different cultural models is an exercise with significant intellectual payoff.

Keywords

cultural models synthesis scheme cultural models cultural dimensions Schwartz’s model

In the last half century, culture – a societal-level pattern of values, attitudes, norms and beliefs – has gained increasing attention in the social sciences. The ever-increasing amount of different models of culture has led to a situation, where the call for some systemisation has become increasingly prominent. Earlier attempts at systematising cultural dimensions notwithstanding (Maleki & de Jong, 2014; Nardon & Steers, 2009), Kaasa (2021) presents to date the most comprehensive Cultural Models Synthesis Scheme (CMSS). Her CMSS integrates in conceptual terms the three most widely used models to pinpoint cross-cultural variation in human values: namely, those by Hofstede (1980), Schwartz (1994, 2004), and Inglehart (1997). However, this CMSS needs to be complemented by a systematic empirical analysis. Importantly, against this backdrop, a recent study by Kaasa and Minkov (2022) demonstrates empirically that Inglehart’s two dimensions (Inglehart & Welzel, 2021), the two dimensions of the revised Hofstede’s model by Minkov et al. (2017, 2018a, 2018b), as well as the first two dimensions extracted by Beugelsdijk and Welzel’s (2018) synthesis of Inglehart’s and Hofstede’s models, are rotations of each other. This is in accordance with the results of Fog (2021), who factor-analysed the cultural dimensions of all major studies and showed that his meta-level factors, resembling Minkov’s two dimensions, can be aligned with Inglehart’s dimensions with the help of rotation. Thus, we already have some understanding about how Hofstede’s and Inglehart’s models (two of three in the CMSS) are empirically related. However, we do not have much empirical evidence about the placement of Schwartz’s cultural model with respect to other cultural models. This forms the motivation of this article.

In this exploratory study, we turn to those items inspired by Schwartz’s questionnaire that were fielded in the World Values Survey (WVS). We follow the spirit of Schwartz’s study (2006), where he analysed the 21 Schwartz items fielded in the European Social Survey (ESS). In the WVS, even less items (altogether 11 items in two waves) were fielded. Moreover, the choice of Schwartz items both into the ESS and the WVS apparently has been made keeping his individual-level model in mind and thus does not cover the dimensions of his cultural level model to the same extent. We believe that although the 10 Schwartz items do not provide full coverage of Schwartz’s cultural-level circumplex, they do outline its structure in a concise form and analysing those scarce items will give us valuable information. In the similar spirit, although from different field, it has been shown (Gosling et al., 2003) that very brief, 5 and 10-item measures of the Big-Five dimensions, although somewhat inferior to standard multi-item instruments, reached adequate levels of convergence with widely used Big-Five measures. Previously, Dobewall and Rudnev (2014) have analysed the 10 Schwartz items from the fifth wave of the WVS in comparison to the 10 variables that have been used for calculating the scores for Inglehart’s two dimensions (Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Inglehart & Welzel, 2021). We will go a step forward in two aspects: first, we will use data from both WVS waves in which the Schwartz items were fielded; and second, we will use a balanced set of 25 items unambiguously measuring culture used by Kaasa and Minkov (2022) as our background framework. This will enable us to relate those Schwartz items to the Inglehart’s and revised Hofstede’s models.

Our main research question is: how would the WVS items inspired by Schwartz’s questionnaire be positioned in Kaasa and Minkov’s (2022) empirical framework and the theoretical framework offered by Kaasa’s (2021) CMSS? Answering this question is an important step towards an empirical solidification of our understanding, how different cultural models relate to each other. This is important, for example, when studying the impact of culture on some other phenomena and wanting to compare the results of previous studies that have used different cultural models for describing culture.

Our comparison of the positions of Schwartz’s items in the WVS with the positions of the dimensions of the Inglehart’s and revised Hofstede’s models reveals some important details concerning Schwartz’s model. We have no reason to doubt the general idea behind Schwartz’s model: what are the main dimensions and what is the core of each dimension, e.g. the basic problems societies face and have to respond to. However, the positions of the Schwartz items fielded in the WVS with respect to established dimensions of culture from alternative models can contribute to a better understanding of Schwartz’s model. We will show that it might be useful to rethink some dimensions of Schwartz’s model: what are the keywords and questions that help us to capture the core of those dimensions and whether the names of the poles of those dimensions describe the idea behind these dimensions in the best possible way.

There are many examples from other cultural models that illustrate rethinking being a natural part of the development of scientific knowledge. First, interpretations of cultural dimensions are not unambiguous. For example, as Welzel (2010) points out, self-expression values can be understood as individualistic in the sense of egoism and a pursuit of self-interest, while those values have also been understood as support for equal opportunities for everyone, including opportunities to express one’s concerns and join forces when those concerns are shared. Also, in the course of time additional aspects of cultural dimensions may be revealed. For instance, collectivism has been understood as having harmonious, cooperative in-group relationships, but Liu et al. (2019) have shown that collectivism is also characterised by interpersonal tensions expressed as within-group competition and in-group vigilance. Besides, an operationalisation of a particular dimension might not be replicable in new studies based on new data. It has been shown for example that the masculinity-femininity and uncertainty avoidance dimensions cannot be replicated (Merritt, 2000; Minkov, 2018; Minkov & Kaasa, 2021) following the original operationalisation by Hofstede (1980). This is also reflected by missing correlations of those two dimensions with those in latest empirical two-dimensional models, see Table A1 in the Appendix. Furthermore, those dimensions also have marginal explanatory power, as can be seen from example in Kaasa and Minkov (2022), where the correlations of cultural dimensions from various cultural models with 35 social, economic and political indicators are presented. However, this does not necessarily mean that all the aspects of culture that these dimensions were meant to cover are not relevant. Kaasa’s (2021) study has shown that important elements of these dimensions correspond conceptually to dimensions from other sets, forming a more general understanding of the main dimensions in the cultural space. Hence, in this article we refer to the masculinity-femininity and uncertainty avoidance dimensions focusing only on the aspects that can be related to other cultural models. This means for example excluding the aspect of gender equality from the masculinity-femininity dimension and the anxiety-related aspects from the uncertainty avoidance dimension (for more detailed discussion, see Kaasa, 2021).

Table A1.

Correlations Between Schwartz’s and Hofstedes Scores and Cultural Dimensions Analysed in Kaasa and Minkov (2022).

	Self-Expres-Sion (vs. Survival) (IW)	Secular-Rational (vs. Traditional) (IW)	Indivi-Dualism (vs. Collectivism) (M)	Monumen-Talism (vs. Flexibility (M)	Indivi-Dualism (vs. Collectivism) (BW)	Joy (vs. Duty) (BW)
Embeddedness (S)	−.797**	−.628**	−.890**	.298*	−.820**	−.448**
Affective autonomy (S)	.720**	.540**	.812**	−.388**	.758**	.414**
Intellectual autonomy (S)	.723**	.597**	.814**	−.240	.785**	.356**
Hierarchy (S)	−.468**	−.285*	−.548**	−.186	−.548**	−.239
Egalitarianism (S)	.611**	−.012	.484**	.240	.440**	.552**
Mastery (S)	−.164	−.108	−.063	−.265	−.170	.058
Harmony (S)	.365**	.415**	.390**	.080	.513**	−.011
Power distance (H)	−.664	−.375*	−.661**	.151	−.599**	−.408**
Individualism (vs. collectivism) (H)	.666**	.410**	.698**	−.131	.688**	.249*
Masculinity (vs. femininity) (H)	−.082	−.178	−.183	.020	−.261*	.009
Uncertainty avoidance (H)	−.268*	−.085	.017	.237	−.133	−.208
Long term (vs. short term) orientation (H)	.001	.704**	.349**	−.616**	.384**	−.380**
Indulgence (vs. restraint) (H)	.567**	−.169	.102	.331*	.227*	.917**

**means significant at the .01 level, *significant at the .05 level. S stands for Schwartz (2008), H for Hofstede (2015), IW for Inglehart and Welzel (2021), M for Minkov et al. (2017, 2018a), BW for Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018).

Goal and Concept of This Study

The main goal of our study is to investigate how the Schwartz items in the WVS would be positioned in the system, which merges Hofstede’s, Schwartz’s, and Inglehart’s model (Kaasa, 2021). We will start by mapping what we can conclude from previous studies about how the Schwartz’s model relates to the other well-known cultural models.

For our empirical analysis, we use data from the WVS. There are two large cross-cultural surveys – WVS and the ESS (European Social Survey) – fielding items inspired by the Schwartz’s questionnaire of the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS, Schwartz, 1992). There are 21 questions included in all rounds of the ESS and 10 or 11 questions (not all asked in all countries) were included into the fifth and sixth wave of the WVS. As we wanted to cover countries from as many regions of the world as possible, we could not use the ESS. As our main method, we decided to use multidimensional scaling (MDS) – the same method that was used both by Schwartz (2004, 2006) in the development of his cultural level theory and his famous – using his terms – circumplex. The same method was used by Dobewall and Rudnev (2014) to compare the 10 Schwartz items in the WVS items with the 10 items used to calculate Inglehart’s dimensions (Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Inglehart & Welzel, 2021). As an alternative, to further validate our results, we also applied factor analysis. Both methods enable us to find out the relative positions of the Schwartz items with respect to each other and with respect to other items in the WVS.

Regarding those other items, we start with 25 items available in the WVS that unambiguously measure culture as it is currently understood in the mainstream cross-cultural literature. The same 25 WVS items are also used by Kaasa and Minkov (2022) as a background framework. This choice has two advantages. First, those 25 culture-related items form a balanced set avoiding overrepresentation of some cultural aspects at the expense of others. Second, Kaasa and Minkov (2022) provide placements of dimensions from various models, including Inglehart’s and revised Hofstede’s model on the background of those 25 items (see Figure A1 in the Appendix). Using the same items will also allow us to rely on those placements and relate the Schwartz items in the WVS to the Inglehart’s and revised Hofstede’s model. As Kaasa and Minkov (2022) have also aligned their empirical model with the theoretical CMSS (Kaasa, 2021) as shown on Figure 1, we will be able to relate all WVS items that we will now analyse on the background of the mentioned 25 items to the theoretical CMSS merging Hofstede’s, Schwartz’s, and Inglehart’s models. This enables us to compare the theoretical placement of various cultural elements (the term used by Kaasa (2021) for values, norms, beliefs, attitudes, and more) with the placement of their empirical equivalents. After mapping the Schwartz items on the background of those 25 items, in order to provide a wider basis for our conclusions and to explore possible explanations for our observations, we include additional items that are available in either the fifth or the sixth WVS wave.

Figure A1.

Placement of various sets of cultural dimensions on the background of 25 culture-related items (IW stands for Inglehart and Welzel (2021), M1 for a set from Minkov et al. (2017; 2018a), M2 for Minkov et al. (2018b), BW for Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018)). Source: Kaasa and Minkov (2022).

Figure 1.

Comparison of the theoretical CMSS proposed by Kaasa (2021) (rotated by 180°) and the placement of various empirical sets of cultural dimensions by Kaasa and Minkov (2022) with Inglehart’s dimensions aligned with vertical and horizontal axes (IW stands for Inglehart and Welzel (2021), M1 for a set from Minkov et al. (2017; 2018a), M2 for Minkov et al. (2018b), BW for Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018)). Source: Kaasa and Minkov (2022).

Schwartz’s Model Compared to Other Cultural Models

Schwartz’s cultural level model includes seven value types that have been often generalised into three dimensions. However, according to Kaasa (2021), after splitting the area on the opposite of autonomy (which is already consisting of two value types: intellectual and affective autonomy) into an embeddedness part related to relationships and a conservatism part related to formal aspects, Schwartz’s model can be represented by four dimensions, each conceptually similar with one of Hofstede’s (1980) original dimensions (see Figure 1, left). Intellectual autonomy versus embeddedness is similar to Hofstede’s individualism versus collectivism, affective autonomy versus conservatism has common elements with Hofstede’s conceptualisation of uncertainty acceptance versus avoidance; whereas the concepts of hierarchy versus egalitarianism and mastery versus harmony are similar to Hofstede’s conceptualisation of power distance versus closeness and some parts of Hofstede’s conceptualisation of masculinity versus femininity, respectively (Kaasa, 2021; Maleki & de Jong, 2014; Nardon & Steers, 2009).

When developing his cultural level model, Schwartz (1994) hypothesised two broader dimensions: autonomy versus conservatism/embeddedness and hierarchy plus mastery versus egalitarianism plus harmony. The same approach has been used later (Dobewall & Strack, 2014) as well. These broader dimensions are placed at a 45-degree angle with respect to Inglehart’s dimensions in the theoretical CMSS framework (see Figure 1, left). The autonomy pole is placed between the self-expression and secular-rational poles of Inglehart’s model, whereas the conservatism/embeddedness pole is situated between the respective opposites. Hierarchy plus mastery is placed between the self-expression and traditional poles of Inglehart’s dimensions and egalitarianism plus harmony is again between the opposites.

While Hofstede’s (1980), Schwartz’s (1994) and Inglehart’s (1997) models have been known for decades and have gained huge popularity, Minkov (Minkov, 2018; Minkov et al., 2017, 2018a, 2018b) has recently published a revision of Hofstede’s model, containing only two dimensions: individualism versus collectivism and flexibility versus monumentalism. The latter dimension is a successor of the long versus short term orientation dimension in Hofstede’s extended model (Hofstede, 2001). Similar aspects are captured by the first two dimensions that emerged from the analysis of Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018): individualism versus collectivism and duty versus joy, whereas their third factor was based on items that did not reflect culture in the same sense as the dimensions of Hofstede, Inglehart, or Schwartz (Kaasa & Minkov, 2022).

In Kaasa and Minkov’s (2022) empirical analysis (see Figure 1, right), the dimensions named individualism-collectivism by Minkov as well as Beugelsdijk and Welzel were placed between the Inglehart’s two dimensions, individualism between the self-expression and secular-rational poles and collectivism between the survival and traditional poles, confirming the placements in the CMSS (Figure 1, left). This also provides indirect support for the similar placement of the Schwartz’s opposition of autonomy versus embeddedness/conservatism in the CMSS, as that dimension has been shown to be empirically close to individualism-collectivism (Fog, 2021; Maleki & de Jong, 2014). However, Schwartz’s dimensions have a more ambiguous relationship with the second dimension in Minkov’s model (monumentalism vs. flexibility), and in Beugelsdijk and Welzel’s model (joy vs. duty), which were placed close to the other diagonal in Kaasa and Minkov’s (2022) visualisation. Both monumentalism-flexibility and joy-duty tap the opposition between self-enhancement and self-transcendence, which Schwartz (1994) theorised to be covered by the broad dimension of hierarchy plus mastery versus egalitarianism plus harmony. However, Schwartz’s (2008) scores pertaining to these dimensions appear not to be significantly correlated with monumentalism-flexibility and joy-duty (see Table A1 in the Appendix), except for egalitarianism that is positively related to joy (vs. duty), contradicting the expectations based on the placements shown on Figure 1.

Data and Methods

The items inspired by the Schwartz’s questionnaire of the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS, Schwartz, 1992) were included in the fifth and sixth (but not any more in the seventh) wave of the WVS. The fifth wave of the WVS fielded 10 items based on Schwartz’s questionnaire in 52 countries and an additional question was added in the sixth wave (see Table 1). However, in some countries that question was not asked, while in some countries one initial question (about help and care) was dropped, so not in all countries all 11 questions were asked in the sixth wave. Because the question about help and care is highly relevant for Schwartz’s model, we decided to include that question, although it allowed us to do an analysis across only 65 countries instead of 77. We also ran our analyses without the question about help and care and we got very similar results to those presented in this article. We decided not to include the last question in Table 1, as that would have left only 45 countries to base our conclusions on. However, we again ran the analyses and saw that the results would have been similar with all 11 questions included.

Table 1.

Items Based on Schwartz’s Questionnaire in the WVS.

Short Name Used in Figures	Code^a	Full Wording of the Question in the WVS (the Wordings Used in the Two WVS Were the Same)
Creative_own_way	A189	It is important to this person to think up new ideas and be creative; to do things one’s own way
Being_rich	A190	It is important to this person to be rich; to have a lot of money and expensive things
Secure_surroundings	A191	Living in secure surroundings is important to this person; to avoid anything that might be dangerous
Good_time	A192	It is important to this person to have a good time; to “spoil” oneself
Help_care	A193	It is important to this person to help the people nearby; to care for their well-being
Successful_recognised	A194	Being very successful is important to this person; to have people recognize one’s achievements
Adventures_risks	A195	Adventure and taking risks are important to this person; to have an exciting life
Behave_properly	A196	It is important to this person to always behave properly; to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong
Care_nature_environment	A197	Looking after the environment is important to this person; to care for nature
Traditions_of_religion_family	A198	Tradition is important to this person; to follow the customs handed down by one’s religion or family
(not present in figures)	A199	It is important to this person to do something for the good of society

Note. Measurement units: mean value, scale 1–6 (recoded to: 1 = not at all like me, 2 = not like me, 3 = a little like me, 4 = somewhat like me, 5 = like me, 6 = very much like me).

^aCode in the integrated data file (Integrated Values Surveys 1981–2015).

Similarly to Schwartz (1994; 2004; 2006; 2008) and Dobewall and Strack (2014), ipsatised scores were used: each individual respondent’s ratings of items were centered on his or her mean rating of all of the items. This allows to account for relative importance for a particular respondent of the values covered by those questions.

Here and hereafter, the individual-level variables from the WVS were aggregated by calculating the country means for each wave, using the weights provided by the WVS to ensure that data would be representative according to the demographic structure of countries. The number of respondents per country was 1470.7 on average and ranged from 841 to 4078. If a country was present in both waves, we then calculated the average score for each item across the fifth and sixth waves. This enables us to reduce the effect of score fluctuation due to random measurement error. For countries that were studied only in either the fifth or sixth wave, we used scores from a single wave.

As background items, we use 25 culture related items. The exact wordings and measurement units of those questions (also used by Kaasa & Minkov, 2022) are presented in Table A2 in the Appendix.

Table A2.

Description of 25 Background Items Used in this Study.

Variable	code^a	Question Wording	Measurement Units
Important in life: family	A001	How important is in your life: family	Mean value, scale 1–4 (recoded to: 1 = not at all important, 2 = not very important, 3 = quite important, 4 = very important)
Important in life: friends	A002	“: Friends	“
Important in life: leisure time	A003	“: Leisure time	“
Important in life: work	A005	“: Work	“
Important in life: religion	A006	“: Religion	“
Child qualities: Independence	A029	Important qualities which children can be encouraged to learn at home: independence	Share of those who mentioned it as important
Child qualities: Hard work	A030	“: Hard work	“
Child qualities: Feeling of responsibility	A032	“: Feeling of responsibility	“
Child qualities: Imagination	A034	“: Imagination	“
Child qualities: Tolerance and respect for other people	A035	“: Tolerance and respect for other people	“
Child qualities: Thrift saving money and things	A038	“: Thrift saving money and things	“
Child qualities: Determination, perseverance	A039	“: Determination, perseverance	“
Child qualities: Obedience	A042	“: Obedience	“
Justifiable: Homosexuality	F118	Following statements, can always be justified, never be justified or something in between: Homosexuality	Mean value, scale 1–10 (1 = never, 10 = always)
Justifiable: Abortion	F120	“: Abortion	“
Most people can be trusted	A165	Would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?	Share of those who chose the first option (trusted)
Men more right to a job than women	C001	When jobs are scarce, men have more right to a job than women	Mean value, scale 1–3 (recoded to: 1 = disagree, 2 = neither, 3 = agree)
Employers: Priority to (nation) people than immigrants	C002	When jobs are scarce, employers should give priority to (nation) people over immigrants	“
Aim of respondent: Maintaining order	E003	Which of the goals would you say is most important: Maintaining order in the nation	Share of those who mentioned it as a first choice
Aim of respondent: Giving people more say	E003	“: Giving people more say in important government decisions	“
Aim of respondent: Freedom of speech	E003	“: Protecting freedom of speech	“
Future: Less importance placed on work	E015	Various changes in our way of life that might take place in the near future: If it were to happen whether you think it would be a good thing, a bad thing or don’t you mind? Less/decrease in importance placed on work in our lives	Mean value, scale 1–3 (recoded to: 1 = bad, 2 = don’t mind, 3 = good)
Future: Greater respect for authority	E018	“: Greater respect for authority	“
Government (vs. people) more responsibility	E037	The government/state should take more responsibility to ensure that everyone is provided for versus people/individuals should take more responsibility to provide for themselves	Mean value, scale 1–10 (recoded to: 1 = individuals…, 10 = the government…)
How proud of nationality	G006	How proud are you to be … (nationality)	Mean value, scale 1–4 (recoded to: 1 = not at all proud, 2 = not very proud, 3 = quite proud, 4 = very proud)

^acode in the integrated data file (Integrated Values Surveys 1981–2015).

In addition, we include two sets of additional variables to test the supposed explanations of our observations (Table 2). First, following the spirit of Hofstede’s (1980) operationalisation of cultural dimensions based on work values we use the WVS questions about what is important in a job. Schwartz (1999) refers to work values as the expressions of more general human values in the context of a work setting and notes the compatibility between work values and cultural values: for example valuing personal growth, autonomy, interest, and creativity are compatible with intellectual and affective autonomy, whereas prestige, authority and influence are consistent with hierarchy and mastery. The items about job-related values were not fielded in the sixth wave and were not fielded in all countries in the fifth wave, but they were fielded in all countries in the fourth wave. Therefore, we use average scores from the fourth and fifth waves (or only one wave, if a country was included only in one of those waves). Second, we include another set of questions (Table 2) addressing the supposed tension between fatalistic views (emphasis on religion) and informed responsibility (emphasis on science). The first of those questions was asked only in the fifth wave, the second only in the sixth wave, and the third in both waves. Therefore, we again use the average scores from the two waves.

Table 2.

Additional Items Used in this Study.

Short Name Used in figures	code^a	Full Wording of the Question in the WVS	Measurement Units
good_pay	C011	Important in a job: good pay	Share of those who men-tioned it as important
job_security	C013	Important in a job: good job security	“
use_initiative	C016	Important in a job: an opportunity to use initiative	“
achieve_something	C018	Important in a job: that you can achieve something	“
responsible_job	C019	Important in a job: a responsible job	“
interesting_job	C020	Important in a job: a job that is interesting	“
job_meets_abilities	C021	Important in a job: a job that meets one´s abilities	“
no_pre-determined_fate	F198	Individuals can decide their own destiny (vs. it is impossible to escape a predetermined fate)	Mean value, scale 1–10 (1 = everything is determined by fate, 10 = people shape their fate themselves)
science_not_important	I002	It is not important for me to know about science in my daily life	Mean value, scale 1–10 (1 = completely disagree, 10 = completely agree)
not_enough_faith	E220	We depend too much on science and not enough on faith	“

^acode in the integrated data file (Integrated Values Surveys 1981–2015).

To map the association/dissociation pattern between all of these variables, we employed multidimensional scaling analysis as our main method, because this is the same method as Schwartz (2004, 2006, 2008) used when creating his cultural model as a circumplex. The idea of circumplex (going back to Guttman, 1954) is a circular ordering of various elements (items) so that those close to each other conceptually are also close to each other on figure. The most widely used methods for testing circumplex models are multidimensional scaling (MDS) and factor analysis (principal component method) (Hinz et al., 2005). Schwartz (1994) used the MDS and concluded that “culture level values are organized into the same two basic dimensions that organize individual-level values”, but for interpretational reasons divided his circumplex into more than two dimensions. Hofstede (1980) and Inglehart (1997) used factor analysis. However, as Inglehart (1997, p. 82) has demonstrated, in case of only two factors, it is possible to create figures similar to circumplex so that axes represent two factors and the item’s placement is determined by the loadings of the items onto the two dimensions. Hence, we also used factor analysis in order to further validate our results.

We used IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0 for our analyses. For MDS, we applied ALSCAL procedure with Euclidean distances on our country level data. We standardised all variables before the analysis to take them into account on equal basis as suggested (IBM, 2021) in order to avoid differences in scaling affecting our solution.

Although Schwartz always presented two-dimensional solutions, we were inspired by one of our reviewers and run the analyses with different numbers of dimensions. It has been shown (Fog, 2021, 2022; Kaasa & Minkov, 2022) that in the case of factor analysis two dimensions are sufficient to cover the main cultural differences. However, Schwartz and his colleagues have not discussed the number of dimensions in the case of MDS. We compared the stress values (Kruskal’s stress, Young’s S-stress) showing the percentage of variance in the disparities that cannot be explained by the model (Ding, 2018) and the dispersion accounted for (DAF, calculated as 1 minus normalised (e.g. squared) stress) of different solutions. We present the stress and DAF values for all our models for different dimensionalities in Table A3 and Figure A2 in the Appendix. It appeared that while there was a significant advantage of two-dimensional model compared to one-dimensional, the additional improvement in variance covered when adding more dimensions, was more marginal. In addition, as Ding (2018) puts it, the capacity of human mind to visualise objects is limited, and thus, “it is reasonable to expect that we should be able to view the data structure in two- or three-dimensional space without too much difficulties, usually in a two-dimensional space” that in most cases should be sufficient. Thus, we present two-dimensional solutions on our Figures, because this gives us also the best comparability with Schwartz’s original results.

Table A3.

Stress values and dispersion accounted for (DAF) for MDS analyses of different setups depending on the number of dimensions asked.

For the Set of Items Presented on	How Many Dimensions				How Many Dimensions
For the Set of Items Presented on	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4
	Kruskal’s stress				DAF based on Kruskal’s stress
Figure 2	.535	.289	.188	.130	71.4	91.6	96.5	98.3
Figure 3	.586	.260	.156	.100	65.7	93.2	97.6	99.0
Figure 4	.540	.309	.209	.147	70.8	90.5	95.6	97.8
Figure 5	.533	.302	.192	.140	71.6	90.9	96.3	98.0
Figure 6	.539	.286	.181	.126	70.9	91.8	96.7	98.4
	Young’s S-stress				DAF based on Young’s S-stress
Figure 2	.494	.312	.230	.182	75.6	90.3	94.7	96.7
Figure 3	.614	.314	.205	.149	62.3	90.1	95.8	97.8
Figure 4	.523	.354	.262	.203	72.6	87.5	93.1	95.9
Figure 5	.538	.358	.247	.190	71.1	87.2	93.9	96.4
Figure 6	.518	.310	.231	.175	73.2	90.4	94.7	96.9

Note. On Figures 2 –6 two-dimensional models are presented.

Figure A2.

Dispersion accounted for (DAF) based on Kruskal’s stress values for MDS analyses for the set of items presented on Figures 2 –6 depending on the number of dimensions.

For better comparability, the results of the MDS are rotated to align them with the background framework presented on Figure 1 (except for the initial analysis of Schwartz’s items without any other items). This is done based on the relative placements of 25 background items with respect to cultural dimensions on Figure A1 in the Appendix. As an alternative method, to further validate our results, we also applied factor analysis (principal component method, varimax rotation). We present the results of our factor analyses in the same way as for example Inglehart (1997, p. 82) and Fog (2022, p. 37): as figures mapping the analysed items in the set of axes presenting two factors and factor loadings determining the placement of items. Again, for better comparability, the results are rotated to align them with the background framework presented on Figure 1.

Results

Initial Analysis of 25 Culture-Related Background Items

We start with the 25 culture related background items. In a first step, we analyse only those 25 items and we present the relative positions of those items on Figure 2. The relative positions according to our MDS analysis of 25 culture-related background items using data from the fifth and sixth wave of the WVS (presented on Figure 2) are very similar to the results obtained by Kaasa and Minkov (2022) when factor-analysing data from the waves 2–7 of the WVS (shown on Figure A1 in the Appendix). Thus, we can rely on Figure A1 in relating the positions of analysed items relative to various cultural dimensions. So, here and hereafter, for background information we also draw the axes pertaining to the Inglehart’s dimensions on figures in order to relate our results to the placements of various dimensions on Figure 1. We also mark the domains of Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s dimensions based on how the CMSS places them with respect to Inglehart’s dimensions.

Figure 2.

Relative positions of 25 culture-related background items (MDS results based on 67 countries) on the background of the CMSS merging Inglehart’s, Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s model.

Initial Analysis of Schwartz’s Items

Next, Figure 3 shows the positions of the Schwartz’s items, when only these are entered into the MDS. In this stage of our analysis, we have no information that would help us to align the results with the CMSS, hence we have added no axes to the figure: the positions of items are presented in the way they have emerged from the MDS analysis. However, we can see that a clear two-dimensional pattern emerges. On the slightly tilted horizontal axis, we see the opposition between conservatism/embeddedness on the left-hand side and affective/intellectual autonomy on the right-hand side. By contrast, the slightly tilted vertical axis seems to display the opposition between egalitarianism and harmony on the upper end, versus mastery and hierarchy on the lower end. This suggests that even if the choice of Schwartz items into the WVS was made keeping his individual-level model in mind, they seem to replicate the cultural model to a reasonable degree.

Figure 3.

Relative positions of Schwartz’s items (MDS results based on 65 countries). In this stage of our analysis, we have no information that would help us to align the results with the CMSS, hence we have added no axes to the figure.

Placements of Schwartz’s Items With Respect to 25 Background Items

The next step positions Schwartz’s items relative to the 25 culture-related background items shown previously. Table A4 in the Appendix reports the correlations between the Schwartz’s items and the 25 background items. Figure 4 documents the MDS results.

Table A4.

Correlations between the Schwartz’s items in the WVS and 25 culture-related background items.

	Think up New Ideas and be Creative, do Things own way	To be Rich, Have Money and Expensive Things	Living in Secure Surroundings, Avoid Anything Dangerous	To Have a Good Time, to Spoil Oneself	To Help the People Nearby, to Care for Their Wellbeing	Being Very Successful, Having Achievements Recognised	Adventure and Taking Risks, Exciting Life	To Always Behave Properly, Avoid Doing Anything Wrong	Looking after the Environment, Care for Nature	Tradition, Follow Customs of Religion or Family
Important in life: family	−.161	−.006	.076	−.259*	−.169	.220	.032	.224	−.146	.316**
Important in life: friends	.142	−.021	−.198	−.048	.163	−.125	.172	−.138	.168	−.129
Important in life: leisure time	.468**	−.364**	.090	.170	.404**	−.327**	.164	−.189	.395**	−.465**
Important in life: work	−.079	.133	−.013	−.243*	−.375**	.428**	.066	.135	−.280*	.147
Important in life: religion	−.312**	.276*	.077	−.354**	−.515**	.577**	−.018	.143	−.496**	.378**
Child qualities: Independence	.214	−.001	−.193	.076	.049	−.316**	.157	−.122	.292**	−.167
Child qualities: Hard work	−.349**	.492**	−.068	−.489**	−.289*	.286*	.163	.489**	−.382**	.268*
Child qualities: Feeling of responsibility	−.09	−.490**	.043	.382**	.324**	−.469**	−.241*	−.031	.467**	.151
Child qualities: Imagination	.607**	−.141	−.263*	.199	.133	−.349**	.350**	−.458**	.257*	−.356**
Child qualities: Tolerance and respect for other people	.293**	−.614**	.186	.181	.535**	−.411**	−.212	−.045	.598**	−.094
Child qualities: Thrift saving money and things	−.226*	.252*	.007	−.029	−.321**	.034	.067	.068	−.059	.059
Child qualities: Determination, perseverance	.228*	.080	−.230*	.056	.026	−.144	.246*	−.025	.135	−.287*
Child qualities: Obedience	.016	.115	.101	−.231*	−.234	.389**	.010	.042	−.303**	.032
Most people can be trusted	.270*	−.070	−.182	.271*	.322**	−.446**	.055	−.416**	.291*	−.206
Future: Less importance placed on work good	.325**	−.164	−.088	.412**	.258*	−.340**	.284*	−.420**	.102	−.443**
Future: Greater respect for authority good	−.242*	−.019	.169	−.155	−.035	.335**	−.335**	.274*	−.153	.211
Government (vs. people) more responsibility	−.464**	.232*	.132	−.108	−.276*	.392**	−.256*	.170	−.398**	.313**
Justifiable: Homosexuality	.617**	−.544**	−.073	.455**	.590**	−.633**	.088	−.337**	.556**	−.506**
Justifiable: Abortion	.484**	−.372**	−.055	.293*	.527**	−.599**	.122	−.210	.508**	−.381**
How proud of nationality	−.123	.043	−.016	−.299**	−.281*	.439**	.023	.058	−.156	.252*
Men more right to a job than women	−.599**	.422**	.015	−.207	−.553**	.544**	−.170	.215	−.533**	.459**
Employers: Priority to (nation) people than immigrants	−.528**	.271*	.321**	−.326**	−.439**	.408**	−.267*	.402**	−.357**	.431**
Aim of respondent: Maintaining order	−.421**	.293*	.049	−.270*	−.190	.234*	−.182	.129	−.210	.398**
Aim of respondent: Giving people more say	.545**	−.225	−.07	.181	.183	−.220	.182	−.312**	.267*	−.422**
Aim of respondent: Freedom of speech	.576**	−.478**	−.054	.394**	.475**	−.455**	.061	−.399**	.426**	−.440**

**means significant at the .01 level, * significant at the .05 level.

Figure 4.

Relative positions of Schwartz’s items (circled) and 25 background items (MDS results based on 53 countries) on the background of the CMSS merging Inglehart’s, Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s model. 25 background items are denoted with black, Schwartz’s items with white fill.

The placement of the Schwartz items with respect to each other in Figure 4 is very similar to that already shown in Figure 3 as well as to the pattern revealed by Dobewall and Rudnev (2014, F. 1a). They positioned the 10 Schwartz items relative to the 10 items that were used for calculating the scores for Inglehart’s dimensions by Inglehart and Baker (2000) as well as Inglehart and Welzel (2021) and demonstrated that positioning of the items pertaining to those two models with respect to each other is very similar to the positioning presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4 locates tradition (‘Tradition is important to this person; to follow the customs handed down by one’s religion or family’) and behaving right (‘It is important to this person to always behave properly; to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong’) close to the traditional pole in Inglehart’s terms. In accordance with Schwarz’s model, those two items appear to be placed in the wider embeddedness/conservatism sector together with success and recognition (‘Being very successful is important to this person; to have people recognize one’s achievements’). Although tradition and behaving right are related to conservatism and maintaining the status quo, the wordings of the questions also have elements related to relationships, such as ‘anything people would say is wrong’ or ‘family’, thus indicating that approval and harmonious relationships are important. Similarly, it is likely that the relationships-related part of the success and recognition item – ‘have people recognize one’s achievements’ – is what is behind its placement within the conservatism-embeddedness sector.

On the opposite side, we see items that all are related to autonomy (both intellectual and affective). Creativity and doing things one’s own way (‘It is important to this person to think up new ideas and be creative; to do things one’s own way’) is placed close to the self-expression pole in Inglehart’s terms, aligned with affective autonomy. Similarly, having good time (‘It is important to this person to have a good time; to “spoil” oneself’) is also associated with autonomy.

The placement of adventure and taking risks (‘Adventure and taking risks are important to this person; to have an exciting life’) close to egalitarianism and security (‘Living in secure surroundings is important to this person; to avoid anything that might be dangerous’) close to hierarchy might seem questionable at first sight, as one might expect those to be placed on the affective autonomy versus conservatism axis. The correlations of these two items with the 25 background items are relatively weak, so we cannot draw very strong conclusions here, but one potential explanation is that those two items can be related to one facet of hierarchy-egalitarianism. According to Schwartz (2004), hierarchy can be understood as a hierarchical system of ascribed roles, where authority is highly regarded, while both egalitarianism and intellectual autonomy “share the assumption that people can and should take individual responsibility for their actions and make decisions based on their own personal understanding of situations.” Thus, this dimension encompasses accepting ascribed roles and expecting authorities to make decisions and take actions, versus everyone taking responsibility for their own decisions and actions. In this context, the placement of an item containing ‘taking risks’ together with the items of independence, determination and feeling of responsibility, close to the secular-rational pole seems comprehensible.

The last Schwartz’s dimension to discuss is mastery-harmony. Apparently, being rich (‘It is important to this person to be rich; to have a lot of money and expensive things’) and successful (‘Being very successful is important to this person; to have people recognize one’s achievements’) align with survival values in Inglehart’s terms: if one has to cope with insecure and dire material conditions, wealth and success are highly desired. Further, only when some level of well-being is reached, can people start to think about helping others or caring for nature: if one worries about one’s own survival, caring for nature or others is not a priority. This is in accordance with the Maslow’s (1943) logic that some human needs become relevant only when the others are satisfied, with the physiological and safety needs at the bottom of the pyramid and self-actualisation and –transcendence at the top. The placement of caring for nature (‘Looking after the environment is important to this person; to care for nature’) and helping (‘It is important to this person to help the people nearby; to care for their well-being) close to mastery (and self-expression) is also in accordance with the logic that mastery is about courage, willingness to stand out, and life control or, in more academic terms, ‘agency’(Chang et al., 2017): the capability and ambition to dedicate one’s actions to purposes of one’s own choice. Only agentic individuals in this sense can develop a sense of responsibility for their actions, including the responsibility for others and nature. The relationship between agency and generosity has been shown for example by Whillans and Dunn (2018). Thus, in our modern societies, caring for nature, helping others, charity etc. might be associated with a generous person who can afford it, both in social sense (daring to oppose the dominant views) and in economic sense (noblesse oblige).

According to Schwartz (2004), mastery “encourages active self-assertion”, while harmony “emphasises fitting into the world as it is”. Hence, the placement of the harmony dimension close to the survival pole together with conservatism and the placement of mastery close to self-expression pole together with affective autonomy as in the CMSS seems comprehensible. As Schwartz (1994) noted, mastery and affective autonomy “share an emphasis on stimulating activity”. Mastery can be understood as courage, self-realisation and willingness to stand out, so the placement of the item containing doing ‘things one’s own way’ close to mastery is a logical reflection of human agency. While harmony is about conforming to the environment or situation, mastery is about changing it.

Placements of Job-Related Items With Respect to 25 Background Items

Unfortunately, the items based on Schwartz’s questionnaire that are included into the WVS do not cover the aspects of mastery-harmony dimension sufficiently. However, there are questions in the WVS about what people find important in a job (first seven items presented in Table 2). Those questions were not included in Kaasa and Minkov (2022) because they were not available in all waves. In this study, we include seven items that might be conceptually related to Schwartz’s mastery-harmony (or Hofstede’s masculinity-femininity) dimension into our analysis. Table A5 in the Appendix reports the correlations of these items with the 25 background items. We enter those items into the MDS together with the 25 background items. This allows us to analyse data for 41 countries. We do not include the Schwartz items at the same time because doing so further diminishes the number of countries. Figure 5 shows the results of the respective MDS.

Table A5.

Correlations between the additional items and 25 background items.

	That You can Achieve Something	An Opportunity to Use Initiative	a job that is Interesting	a responsible Job	Good Pay	Good Job Security	a job that Meets one´s Abilities	No Predeter-Mined Fate	Not Enough Faith	Science Not Impor-Tant
Important in life: family	.318**	.066	−.332**	.373**	−.287*	.037	−.104	−.221	−.037	.162
Important in life: friends	.428**	.371**	.173	.288*	−.371**	−.236	−.284*	−.022	−.459**	−.408**
Important in life: leisure time	.271*	.256*	.331**	.020	−.109	−.280*	−.345**	.605**	.096	.055
Important in life: work	.023	−.022	−.341**	.370**	−.126	.150	.098	−.328*	.122	.123
Important in life: religion	.027	−.179	−.368**	.269*	−.082	.189	.092	−.530**	.057	.111
Child qualities: Independence	.297*	.228	.164	.260*	−.279*	.148	−.121	.284	−.268*	−.107
Child qualities: Hard work	−.410**	−.493**	−.166	−.354**	.469**	.197	.088	−.318*	.225	.167
Child qualities: Feeling of responsibility	.067	.328**	.226	.185	−.241*	−.185	.096	.458**	−.227	−.113
Child qualities: Imagination	.279*	.241*	−.073	.211	−.335**	.071	−.333**	.345*	−.148	.070
Child qualities: Tolerance and respect for other people	.505**	.472**	.362**	.218	−.261*	−.214	−.281*	.344*	−.115	−.087
Child qualities: Thrift saving money and things	−.429**	−.158	−.155	−.093	.058	.061	.124	−.007	−.008	.006
Child qualities: Determination, perseverance	.044	−.096	.118	.012	−.071	.039	−.120	.359*	.000	.047
Child qualities: Obedience	−.083	−.200	−.222	.136	.165	.126	−.059	−.408**	.095	.100
Most people can be trusted	.336**	.524**	.460**	.039	−.293*	−.299*	−.193	.371*	−.437**	−.249
Future: Less importance placed on work good	−.335**	−.290*	−.511**	.246*	−.099	.302*	.398**	−.575**	−.067	−.086
Future: Greater respect for authority good	−.519**	−.603**	−.278*	−.232	.316**	.341**	.333**	−.420**	.238	.053
Government (vs. people) more responsibility	.207	.141	.346*	−.051	.198	−.150	−.370*	.502**	−.028	.290*
Justifiable: Homosexuality	−.070	−.026	−.012	−.082	.279*	.026	.042	−.367*	.174	.062
Justifiable: Abortion	−.190	−.243*	−.268*	.037	−.022	.190	.264*	−.431**	−.154	−.222
How proud of nationality	.457**	.528**	.373**	.209	−.258*	−.295*	−.200	.507**	−.104	.036
Men more right to a job than women	.385**	.321**	.512**	.009	−.088	−.294*	−.267*	.411**	−.176	−.044
Employers: Priority to (nation) people than immigrants	.331**	.122	−.197	.382**	−.183	.128	−.220	−.322*	.075	.173
Aim of respondent: Maintaining order	.069	−.039	−.154	.181	−.142	.051	.003	−.226	−.238*	−.291*
Aim of respondent: Giving people more say	.193	−.092	.207	−.262*	.245*	−.024	−.202	.419**	.197	.271*
Aim of respondent: Freedom of speech	.469**	.686**	.240*	.343**	−.392**	−.287*	−.190	.387**	−.141	.032

**means significant at the .01 level, * significant at the .05 level.

Figure 5.

Relative positions of job-related items (circled) and 25 background items (MDS results based on 41 countries) on the background of the CMSS merging Inglehart’s, Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s model25 background items are denoted with black, additional items with grey fill.

We see that ‘an opportunity to use initiative’ and ‘that you can achieve something’ are placed in the mastery sector in Schwartz’s terms (masculinity sector in Hofstede’s terms), while ‘a job that is interesting’ is located in the intellectual autonomy (individualism) sector. However, ‘good pay’ and ‘a job that meets one´s abilities’, are placed into the harmony (femininity) sector. ‘Good job security’ is close to those, but is even closer to conservatism (uncertainty avoidance). ‘A responsible job’ is placed in the hierarchy (power distance) sector. Of course it is also close to the achievement and initiative items, but one explanation for its alignment with the hierarchy sector is that ‘a responsible job’ is understood as a prestigious position rather than feeling and taking responsibility.

Thus, good pay, being rich, successful, and recognised seem, indeed, to tap the harmony pole together with job security, while helping others and caring for nature seem to be on the mastery pole together with achievement and initiative. This is not in accordance with the operationalisation of masculinity-femininity by Hofstede, who placed earnings and recognition at the opposite pole of the employment security. This misplacement explains the non-replicability of Hofstede’s masculinity-femininity dimension shown for example by Minkov (2018) or Minkov and Kaasa (2021). This also means that even when excluding the aspect of gender equality from the masculinity-femininity dimension, there are still problems with Hofstede’s operationalisation of masculinity-femininity dimension.

Placements of Additional Items With Respect to the 25 Background Items

In investigating the idea that taking responsibility versus fatalistic views and a belief that authorities can sort everything out might be an aspect of egalitarianism versus hierarchy, we use three additional questions (last three items in Table 2). Table A4 in the Appendix documents the correlations of these items with the 25 background items. We entered those items into the MDS analysis together with the 25 background items. Figure 6 shows the results.

Figure 6.

Relative positions of additional items (circled) and 25 background items (MDS results based on 27 countries) on the background of the CMSS merging Inglehart’s, Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s model25 background items are denoted with black, additional items with grey fill.

Indeed, the call for more faith (‘We depend too much on science and not enough on faith’) and science viewed as unimportant (‘It is not important for me to know about science in my daily life’) are placed in or close to the hierarchy sector. Together they might reflect passive fatalistic views and a lack of agency and lack of interest in decision-making, in which case knowledge on which to base decisions appears to be unnecessary. The belief that fate is not predetermined, ‘Individuals can decide their own destiny’ (vs. ‘impossible to escape a predetermined fate)’ is placed in the autonomy section next to egalitarianism. This finding confirms that agency and informed responsibility is a facet linking egalitarianism and intellectual autonomy, while fatalism at the opposite end bridges hierarchy and embeddedness. In that light the positioning of ‘taking risks’ close to independence, determination and a feeling of responsibility as well as the positioning of ‘secure surroundings’ close to valuing authorities seems comprehensible. This pattern is also in accordance with the conceptualisation of power distance by Hofstede (1980), including participation versus autocratic decision-making among others.

Putting it all Together

As the placements of the background 25 items presented in Figures 2 and 4 –6 are very similar, we can combine them and all other analysed items onto one figure (Figure 7). The exact placements of the 25 background items are based on Figure 2 in this article.

Figure 7.

Relative positions of all items on the background of the CMSS merging Inglehart’s, Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s model; 25 background items are denoted with black, Schwartz’s items with white and additional items with grey fill.

As Figure 7 illustrates, the ‘good pay’ and ‘being rich’, items from two different sets, are placed together and on the opposite end of ‘using initiative’ and ‘achieving something’. ‘Being successful and recognised’ is placed in the conservatism sector with ‘good job security’. Also, ‘help and care’ and ‘caring for nature’ are placed in the mastery sector together with ‘using initiative’ and ‘achieving something’ and also close to ‘being creative and doing things one’s own way’. In the area close to hierarchy, there are items expressing fatalistic, faith- and authority-oriented views, like ‘science is not important’ or ‘not enough faith’, but also valuing ‘secure surroundings’, possibly provided by authorities, as well as obedience-related ‘following traditions’ and ‘behaving properly’. On the opposite end, there are ‘adventures and risks’ close to valuing an ‘interesting job’ and ‘responsibility’, ‘determination’, and ‘independence’ as well as ‘no predetermined fate’. The placement of these items on both sides of the secular-rational versus traditional axis implies that viewing Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism and power closeness-distance as one-and-the-same dimension might be justified. This broader dimension maps tightly on Inglehart’s secular-rational versus traditional dimension. By contrast, the other aspects that are also often viewed as reflecting individualism-collectivism in a broader sense, namely uncertainty acceptance-avoidance or affective autonomy versus conservatism are covered by Inglehart’s other dimension – self-expression versus survival – together with the elements pertaining to the concepts of masculinity-femininity or mastery-harmony.

Comparison With the Empirical Framework of Two-Dimensional Sets

Figure 8 places the same items as those in Figure 7 into the empirical framework shown on Figure 1 (right) and Figure A1 in Appendix. This enables us to analyse the placements of Schwartz’s items also in comparison with the dimensions in the revised Hofstede’s model by Minkov and the first two dimensions of Beugelsdijk and Welzel’ (2018) synthesis of Inglehart’s and Hofstede’s models.

Figure 8.

Relative positions of all items on the background of the empirical framework by Kaasa and Minkov (2022); 25 background items are denoted with black, Schwartz’s items with white and additional items with grey fill; IW stands for Inglehart and Welzel (2021), M1 for a set from Minkov et al. (2017; 2018a), M2 for Minkov et al. (2018b), BW for Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018).

The placement of items relating to autonomy versus conservatism/embeddedness are expectedly in accordance with the individualism-collectivism dimensions of Minkov (2017, 2018a, 2018b) and Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018). The items related to the opposition of mastery plus hierarchy versus harmony plus egalitarianism are covered by the monumentalism-flexibility and joy-duty dimensions. At that, monumentalism-flexibility is slightly more aligned with hierarchy-egalitarianism and joy-duty slightly more with mastery-harmony, but there are overlapping elements as well. According to Minkov and Kaasa (2021), flexibility is about personal adaptability, that is, being flexible and willing to adapt, as well as self-reliance, that is, “being concerned primarily with one’s own issues and attempting to solve them on one’s own”. Monumentalism, in turn, means dependence on others and generosity, “being always ready to help others in order to earn their admiration”. This is in compliance with the logic that puts help and caring for nature on the mastery and hierarchy pole. Monumentalism includes also self-stability, which might be related to keeping the ascribed roles. Harmony as fitting into the environment is in accordance with flexibility and willingness to adapt. The core of the joy versus duty dimension covers the opposition between post-materialist and materialist values, respectively. Thus, the placement of ‘being rich’ close to the duty pole is comprehensible, again. Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018) also note that in societies at the joy pole people do not find good income important in a job. ‘Being successful and recognised’ is placed between the duty and collectivism axes of Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018), as it covers both materialist and relationship-oriented elements – again, inherently intelligible.

Discussion

When comparing our results with Schwartz’s original interpretations of his MDS results (1994; 2004; 2006), it turns out that the items that are supposed, based on Schwartz’s interpretations, to be related with autonomy (‘being creative and doing things one’s own way’, ‘having good time’) surface in this study in the sector between the self-expression and secular-rational poles, where the autonomy is placed in Kaasa’s (2021) CMSS framework as well. Correspondingly, the items supposed to represent Schwartz’s conservatism/embeddedness (‘behaving properly’, ‘traditions’) occur on the opposite end, between the survival and traditional poles in the CMSS.

However, the placements of other items provide some interesting insights related to (1) operationalisation of cultural dimensions and (2) accuracy of their names. First, there are incompatibilities that seem to indicate an interesting mis-conceptualization in Schwartz’s original value circumplex in the sense of the choice of the keywords that describe a particular pole of a particular dimension (or a “polar response to a particular basic problem societies face”, as Schwartz (2004) puts it). When the Schwartz’s interpretations relate ‘wealth’ as a keyword with hierarchy, ‘successful’ with mastery, ‘helpful/help others’ with egalitarianism, and ‘protect environment/care for nature’ with harmony, our results indicate almost the opposite. ‘Being rich’ and ‘success and recognition’ are logically placed close to the Inglehart’s survival values where the harmony/femininity pole is placed according to the CMSS, while ‘helping others’ and ‘care for nature’ appear to be close to the Inglehart’s self-expression pole, in the mastery/masculinity sector. These placements are supported by the fact that for example ‘being rich’ appears to be together with ‘good pay’ and on the opposite of ‘use initiative’ and ‘achieve something’ that form the core of the mastery pole.

In addition, our results refer to the possibility that the items ‘adventures and taking risks’ and ‘secure surroundings’ reflect rather the opposition of taking responsibility versus expecting authorities to provide solutions that also relates to the logic of power closeness versus distance. Schwartz’s interpretation places ‘exciting life/risk, excitement’ under affective autonomy or mastery and ‘national security/secure surroundings’ under embeddedness. However, our results place ‘adventures and taking risks’ and ‘secure surroundings’ in the sectors that belong to egalitarianism and hierarchy, respectively.

Schwartz (2004, 2008) defines the idea of mastery as encouraging active self-assertion and of harmony as fitting into the world as it is. When looking at the keywords in the original MDS circumplex (available for example in Schwartz, 2006, F. 2), we can see that ‘daring’, ‘capable’, ‘ambitious’, ‘independent’, ‘choosing own goals’ that are related to the general idea of mastery (as well as achievement orientation and self-realisation) are placed together with ‘successful’ and ‘social recognition’, but the latter two might actually tap a completely different set of values. In Inglehart’s terms, the former are related to self-expression and self-realisation, the latter to survival, having enough resources (both material and in the form of social acceptance). It is important to acknowledge that the term ‘success’ can be understood in just materialist sense or in the sense of self-realisation, the former is related to survival and “fitting in” and the latter to self-expression and courage. Apparently, the wording of the success-related question in the WVS is rather associated with the need for more resources that are expected to come with success (materialist understanding of success).

There are only a few keywords in the harmony section of Schwartz’s circumplex and in order to understand them better, it is useful to check the exact wording in the questionnaire (Schwartz, 1994). The full wording of two of the questions in the harmony section was ‘unity with nature (fitting into nature)’ and ‘a world at peace (free of war and conflict)’, which is in accordance with the concept of conforming to one’s environment, but ‘protecting the environment (preserving nature)’ which is also placed into harmony section in Schwartz’s original MDS circumplex is not necessarily related to the more abstract concept of fitting into the environment. It is possible that how various issues are perceived and approached in societies changes in time: when Schwartz performed his original analysis, protecting environment might have been rather understood in a more passive way as not to exhaust the environment, while decades later when societies have become more widely aware of environmental problems and associated dangers, protecting environment has obtained more active meaning including intervention, restoration, etc.

Next, Schwartz (2004, 2008) explains the idea of hierarchy dimension as relying on hierarchical systems of ascribed roles and of egalitarianism as people recognising one another as moral equals. In the hierarchy section of Schwartz’s original MDS circumplex we see ‘humble’ as well as ‘wealth’ and ‘social power’. However, acceptance of ascribed roles and unequal distribution of power is not the same as desiring power and wealth (being rich in WVS terms). The hierarchy dimension seems to be more about structure: how the relationships with others are understood and structured: accepting hierarchy versus treating everybody equal in terms of both rights and – what is equally important – responsibility. Thus, if a survey question is worded as desiring wealth and being rich and not as, for example, accepting unequal distribution of wealth, it cannot be expected that this question characterises hierarchy dimension.

Among the keywords placed in the egalitarianism section in Schwartz’s circumplex we find both ‘responsible’ and ‘helpful’. While being responsible, indeed, is logically related with egalitarianism and self-sufficiency it is associated with (Spielmann, 1986), the keyword ‘helpful’ can have different meanings: being “naturally” helpful (Schwartz, 1994) is different from being ‘ready to help others in order to earn their admiration’, as used for example in Minkov’s monumentalism. Hence, the respondents might understand and interpret the question about helpfulness not necessarily as something related to egalitarianism. It is possible that ‘helping people’ and ‘caring for their well-being’ might in moderns societies understood as something on chooses to do when he or she can afford it.

Second, regarding the accuracy of the dimension names , mastery versus harmony or masculinity versus femininity in Hofstede’s terms seem to be most problematic. It is possible that the term ‘conformity’ instead of ‘harmony’ might better capture the essence of the opposite of the mastery pole. While harmony might refer to unselfish aim to consider the interests of everyone as equal, the opposite pole of mastery (in the sense of agency and responsibility) seems to be rather about fitting into the environment in the sense of convenience and comfort – rather selfish aims. This is in accordance with the conformity (harmony) versus mastery dimension appearing close to the survival versus self-expression dimension, which has been shown to cover selfish versus unselfish values, respectively (Welzel, 2010).

Regarding the analogue in Hofstede’s (1980) model, he associated his masculinity-femininity not only with achievement-orientated values but also with gender egalitarianism. However, later the latter has been related rather to individualism-collectivism (Maleki & de Jong, 2014; Minkov & Kaasa, 2021). The name of the dimension used by Hofstede, might be misleading also because it creates associations with the term ‘feminism’. Feminism, although a word sounding similar to ‘femininity’, is about the equality of genders (which is rather associated with individualism or egalitarianism) and the opportunities for self-realisation for everyone, which is rather related to the achievement orientation values. Modern society is often about achievement and success, but there are diverse versions of achievements and thus, achievement and success cannot be equalised with money and wealth. In that sense, the terms mastery and conformity capture the logic of achievement orientation versus adapting to the environment much better than the opposition of masculinity versus femininity.

Our exercise of comparing one cultural model to others and placing them all in a common universe – the CMSS by Kaasa (2021) has brought out two important implications. First, it might be that the operationalisation and keywords used in the original analysis do not make sense when data from other sources are used: items are not placed where they are expected to be, based on the results of the original analysis. However, going deeper into possible causes makes those incompatibilities understandable and comprehensible.

It becomes clear that care has to be taken when assumptions are made about what aspects of culture (which poles of which dimensions) survey questions including certain keywords can capture. Hence, the wording of the questions is important, but moreover, it is possible that even without changing the wording, questions might be understood differently in different stages of societal development. Questions that capture well a cultural dimension now, might not work in the same way decades later.

Those seeming incompatibilities do not mean that the general idea of a model and its dimensions cannot still hold. Our study shows that including other items not based on Schwartz’s questionnaire still confirms the general logic of Schwartz’s model and its relationships with other models, including those modern two-dimensional models that are shown on Figure 8. However, it is possible that although the dimensions of well-known cultural models have proven to be still viable and relevant, at least in the conceptual sense (as opposed to particular operationalisation), it might be reasonable to rethink the possibly misleading names that might cause confusion and problematic interpretation.

We acknowledge that this study is just one step further in understanding the cultural differences and how different models capture them. However, some suggestions can be made based on this study. With respect to future attempts to replicate Schwartz’s dimensions using some large cross-cultural surveys (such as for example the WVS), it is important to stress that in order to achieve an adequate operationalisation, a sufficient amount of items is necessary. When using only one or two items, there is a high likelihood that because of the unfortunate wording of those items they tap rather something different from what was intended. For example, when intending to measure mastery versus conformity (harmony), a wider set of items describing achievement orientation versus fitting into the environment is needed, including more than just one or two items per dimension pole. Otherwise, as we have shown in this article, misinterpretations can occur easily. For example the placement of the mastery-plus-hierarchy versus the conformity-plus-egalitarianism axis that can be derived when looking only at the 10 Schwartz items (Figure 3) changes to the opposite when we include many additional items outside the ten-item battery (like for example in Figure 7). This insight allows to conclude that concerning the WVS-based analyses of the Schwartz dimensions: (1) either the WVS will expand considerably the number of items used to cover the Schwartz dimensions, or (2) researchers will analyse the WVS-Schwartz items always in connection with a considerable number of additional cultural items to widen the interpretive context, as done in this study against the backdrop of the Kaasa’s CMSS. Whether the same applies for the 21 items that are included into the ESS deserves attention in further research.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Elements of Schwartz’s Model in the WVS: How Do They Relate to Other Cultural Models?

Supplemental Material for Elements of Schwartz’s Model in the WVS: How Do They Relate to Other Cultural Models? by Anneli Kaasa, and Chris Welzel in Cross-Cultural Research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Eesti Teadusagentuur (PRG380).

ORCID iD

Anneli Kaasa

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Appendix

Author Biographies

Anneli Kaasa is Professor of Social and Cultural Studies in Economics at the University of Tartu, Estonia. Christian Welzel is Professor of Research of Political Culture at Leuphana University in Lueneburg, Germany.

References

Beugelsdijk

Welzel

(2018). Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10), 1469–1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118798505

Chang

Adams

Little

T. D.

(2017). Action-control beliefs and agentic actions. In Wehmeyer

M. L.

Shogren

K. A.

Little

T. D.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Development of self-determination through the life-course (pp. 285–295). Springer Science + Business Media.

Ding

C. S.

(2018). Fundamentals of applied multidimensional scaling for educational and psychological research. Springer International Publishing/Springer Nature.

Dobewall

Rudnev

(2014). Common and unique features of Schwartz’s and Inglehart’s value theories at the country and individual levels. Cross-Cultural Research, 48(1), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397113493584

Dobewall

Strack

(2014). Relationship of Inglehart’s and Schwartz’s value dimensions revisited. International journal of psychology: Journal international de psychologie, 49(4), 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12004

Fog

(2021). A test of the reproducibility of the clustering of cultural variables. Cross-Cultural Research, 55(1), 29–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120956948

Fog

(2022). Two-dimensional models of cultural differences: Statistical and theoretical analysis. Cross-Cultural Research, 57(2–3), 115–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971221135703

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Swann

W. B.,

Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1

Guttman

(1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In Lazarsfeld

P. F.

(Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258–348). Columbia University Press.

10.

Hinz

Brähler

Schmidt

Albani

(2005). Investigating the circumplex structure of the portrait values questionnaire (PVQ). Journal of Individual Differences, 26(4), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.26.4.185

11.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

12.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values (2nd ed). Sage.

13.

Hofstede

(2015). Dimension data matrix. (version 2015 12 08). Geert Hofstede BV. https://geerthofstede.com/research-andvsm/dimension-data-matrix/

14.

IBM . (2021). SPSS statistics – early access documentation. IBM. https://www.ibm.com/docs/.en/spss-statistics/beta

15.

Inglehart

(1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press.

16.

Inglehart

Baker

W. E.

(2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657288

17.

Inglehart

Welzel

(2021). The new 2020 World Cultural Map has been released. World Values Survey Association. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSEventsShow.jsp?ID=428&ID=428

18.

Kaasa

(2021). Merging Hofstede, Schwartz, and Inglehart into a single system. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 52(4), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221211011244

19.

Kaasa

Minkov

(2022). Are different two-dimensional models of culture just a matter of different rotations? Evidence from the analysis based on the WVS/EVS. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, online, 53(2), 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221211072790

20.

Liu

S. S.

Morris

M. W.

Talhelm

Yang

(2019). Ingroup vigilance in collectivistic cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(29), 14538–14546. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817588116

21.

Maleki

de Jong

(2014). A proposal for clustering the dimensions of national culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 48(2), 107–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397113510268

22.

Maslow

A. H.

(1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

23.

Merritt

(2000). Culture in the cockpit: Do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031003001

24.

Minkov

(2018). A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: Old evidence and new data from 56 countries. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccsm-03-2017-0033

25.

Minkov

Bond

M. H.

Dutt

Schachner

Morales

Sanchez

Jandosova

Khassenbekov

Mudd

(2018a). A reconsideration of Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New flexibility versus monumentalism data from 54 countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 52(3), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117727488

26.

Minkov

Dutt

Schachner

Jandosova

Khassenbekov

Morales

Sanchez

C. J.

Mudd

(2018b). What values and traits do parents teach to their children? New data from 54 countries. Comparative Sociology, 17(2), 221–252. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-12341456

27.

Minkov

Dutt

Schachner

Morales

Sanchez

C. J.

Jandosova

Khassenbekov

Mudd

(2017). A revision of Hofstede’s IDV-COLL dimension: A new national index from a 56-country study. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(3), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccsm-11-2016-0197

28.

Minkov

Kaasa

(2021). A test of Hofstede’s model of culture following his own approach. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(2), 384–406. https://doi.org/10.1108/ccsm-05-2020-0120

29.

Nardon

Steers

R. M.

(2009). The culture theory jungle: Divergence and convergence in models of national culture. In Bhagat

R. S.

Steers

R. M.

(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of culture, organizations, and work (pp. 3–22). Cambridge University Press.

30.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in Experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–66). Academic Press.

31.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1994). Beyond individualism-collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim

Triandis

H. C.

Kagitcibasi

Choi

S.-C.

Yoon

(Eds.), Cross-cultural research and methodology series, Vol. 18. Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application (pp. 85–119). Sage.

32.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology, 48(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x

33.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences. In Vinken

Soeters

Ester

(Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 43–73). Brill.

34.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913306778667357

35.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2008). The 7 Schwartz cultural value orientation scores for 80 countries. Shalom H Schwartz. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304715744_The_7_Schwartz_cultural_value_orientation_scores_for_80_countries

36.

Spielmann

K. A.

(1986). Interdependence among egalitarian societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5(4), 279–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4165(86)90014-0

37.

Welzel

(2010). How selfish are self-expression values? A civicness test. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(2), 152–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022109354378

38.

Whillans

A. V.

Dunn

E. W.

(2018). Agentic appeals increase charitable giving in an affluent sample of donors. PLOS One, 13(12), e0208392. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208392

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.94 MB