CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109Cultural Differences and ValuesCulture, Economy, and Development StudiesGlobal and Cross-Cultural Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Test of the Revised Minkov-Hofstede Model of Culture: Mirror Images of Subjective and Objective Culture across Nations and the 50 US States

Minkov, Michael, Kaasa, Anneli·2021·Cross-Cultural Research
DOI 10.1177/10693971211014468
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Various models of subjective culture (measures of self-reports) have been proposed since Hofstede’s original work but none of them have been validated by showing that they have analogs in objective culture (measures of societal practices). Inspired by Bardi and Schwartz’s discovery that Schwartz’s individual-level circumplex values model has an exact equivalent in a model of behaviors, we develop a test for the purpose of validating models of culture. We apply this test to Minkov’s revised two-dimensional variant of Hofstede’s subjective-culture model, consisting of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) and flexibility-monumentalism (FLX-MON) (formerly “long-term orientation”), as Fog recently found that an analog to this model incorporates and summarizes all major validated models and dimensions of national culture. We analyze national measures of important social practices associated empirically and theoretically with IDV-COLL and FLX-MON: transparency-corruption, gender equality, political freedom, road death tolls, homicide rates, family structures, innovation rates, and educational effort and achievement. These yielded close analogs to IDV-COLL and FLX-MON, with similar factor structures across nations and across the 50 US states, explicable in terms of IDV-COLL, FLX-MON, and life-history strategy (LHS) theories. Thus, subjective culture structures have mirror images in objective culture structures. This provides validation for our test, for the Minkov-Hofstede two-dimensional model of culture, for the use of nations and some sub-national political entities as units of cultural analysis, as well as for IDV-COLL, FLX-MON, and LHS theories.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/10693971211014468

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Ardilla A., 2001, Asymmetries of Brain, Behavior, and Condition, 6, 77
  2. Dutta S., 2017, Global innovation index 2017; innovation feeding the world
  3. Hofstede G., 2001, Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations
  4. House R. J., 2004, Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies, 9
  5. Minkov M., Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management
  6. Mullis I. V. S., 2016, TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics
  7. Schwartz S. H., 1994, Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application, 85
  8. Schwartz S. H., 2008, Cultural value orientations: Nature and implications of national differences
  9. Schwartz S. H. (2008b). The seven Schwartz cultural value orientations for 80 countries. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304715744_The_7_Schwartz_cultural_value_orientation_scores_for_80_countries
  10. Sear R., Evolution and Human Behavior
  11. Sivak M., 2018, Mortality from road crashes in the individual US states: A comparison with leading causes of death in 2015
  12. Stearns S. C., Evolution and Human Behavior
  13. Van de Vliert E., 2009, Climate, affluence, and culture
  14. Van den Berghe W., IATSS Research
  15. World Health Organization, 2013, Global status report on road safety 2013

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Minkov, M., & Kaasa, A.
Affiliations
  • National Research University Higher School of Economics (RU)
  • University of Tartu (EE)
Corresponding author
Minkov, Michael
ORCID
Venue
Cross-Cultural Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-05-14
Volume
55
Issue
2-3
Pages
230-281
ISSN
  • 0094-3673 (ISSN-L)
  • 1069-3971
  • 1552-3578
DOI
10.1177/10693971211014468
OpenAlex
W3163632141
Cited by
84
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 6
FWCI
12.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Cross-Cultural Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Development › Culture, Economy, and Development Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Business and International Management › Global and Cross-Cultural Management
Keywords
subjective culture, objective culture, individualism-collectivism, long-term orientation, life history strategies, United States states, gender equality, political freedom, homicide rates, family structure, innovation rate, academic performance

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