CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,160Cultural Differences and ValuesGlobal and Cross-Cultural ManagementJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

Examining the impact of culture’s consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions

Open access
Taras, Vas, Kirkman, Bradley L., Steel, Piers·2010·Journal of Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0018938
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Using data from 598 studies representing over 200,000 individuals, we meta-analyzed the relationship between G. Hofstede's (1980a) original 4 cultural value dimensions and a variety of organizationally relevant outcomes. First, values predict outcomes with similar strength (with an overall absolute weighted effect size of rho = 0.18) at the individual level of analysis. Second, the predictive power of the cultural values was significantly lower than that of personality traits and demographics for certain outcomes (e.g., job performance, absenteeism, turnover) but was significantly higher for others (e.g., organizational commitment, identification, citizenship behavior, team-related attitudes, feedback seeking). Third, cultural values were most strongly related to emotions, followed by attitudes, then behaviors, and finally job performance. Fourth, cultural values were more strongly related to outcomes for managers (rather than students) and for older, male, and more educated respondents. Fifth, findings were stronger for primary, rather than secondary, data. Finally, we provide support for M. Gelfand, L. H. Nishii, and J. L. Raver's (2006) conceptualization of societal tightness-looseness, finding significantly stronger effects in culturally tighter, rather than looser, countries.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0018938

Cites

540 of 540 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Taras et al.'s (2010) meta-analysis demonstrated no substantive differences between individual-level data and national-level data.

    “Their meta-analytic results demonstrated no substantive differences between individuallevel data and national-level data.”

    From A cross-cultural meta-analysis of how leader emotional intelligence influences subordinate task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (2018) · cites this paper as Taras et al.'s (2010)

    In “Cultural Values as Main Effects” (page unavailable), the paper reports larger overall effect sizes at the national level (ρ = 0.35) than at the individual level (ρ = 0.18), and describes substantial variation at higher levels of analysis. The “no substantive differences” finding in “Eligibility Criteria and Data Coding Procedures” (page unavailable) compares data from different instruments, not individual-level data with national-level data. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Meta-analytic tests support the view that Hofstede's cultural framework is valid and robust.

    “First, meta-analytic tests support the view that Hofstede's cultural framework is valid and robust (Taras et al., 2010).”

    From A cross-cultural meta-analysis of how leader emotional intelligence influences subordinate task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (2018) · cites this paper as Taras et al., 2010

    The Conclusion reports that cultural values measured within Hofstede’s framework predict certain organizational and employee outcomes, supporting its usefulness. But the Limitations section says the meta-analysis inherits threats to validity from Hofstede’s approach and cannot establish its generalizability against other frameworks. Calling the framework broadly “valid and robust” overstates those qualified findings; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Preferences for leadership style vary by cultural value dimensions, including preferences for charismatic, directive, participative and inspirational leadership styles, with a particularly large difference regarding preferences for paternalistic leadership.

    “The Taras et al. (2010) meta-analysis also found that preferences for leadership style varied by cultural value dimensions, including preferences for charismatic, directive, participative and inspirational leadership styles, with a particularly large difference regarding preferences for paternalistic leadership.”

    From A cross-cultural meta-analysis of how leader emotional intelligence influences subordinate task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (2018) · cites this paper as Taras et al. (2010)

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • General self-concept is conceptualized differently across cultures.

    “general self-concept is conceptualized differently across cultures (Becker et al., 2012;Taras et al., 2010;Vignoles et al., 2016).”

    From Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: a Literature Review and Research Agenda (2022) · cites this paper as Taras et al., 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [12]12. Chao, G. T. (2000). Multilevel issues and culture: An integrative view. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 308-346). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
  2. [43]43. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and the women's movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. [53]53. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
  4. [58]58. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. [82]82. Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and future directions. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 357-378.
  6. [83]83. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model of social beliefs in multi-cultural perspective. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 119-197). San Diego, CA: Elsevier
  7. [111]111. Smith, P. B. (2004). In search of acquiescent response bias. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 50-61.
  8. [120]120. Taras, V. (2008b). Work-related acculturation: Change in individual work-related cultural values following immigration (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  9. [125]125. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2010-05
Volume
95
Issue
3
Pages
405-439
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
DOI
10.1037/a0018938
OpenAlex
W2105301421
Cited by
1,160
References
540
Citations by year
2026: 114 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 96 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 47
FWCI
60.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2010-09-13)
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Global and Cross-Cultural Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Keywords
Hofstede cultural dimensions, cultural values, organizational outcomes, employee performance, absenteeism, turnover, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, feedback seeking, emotions, personality traits, demographic predictors, cross-cultural comparison
MeSH terms
Absenteeism, Affect, Culture, Demography, Employment, Female, Humans, Male, Personality, Personnel Turnover, Psychological Theory, Sexual Behavior, Social Values, Meta-Analysis as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review