The Dimensions of Culture

The way in which power is distributed varies from culture to culture, with some cultures exhibiting a much greater separation between those with power and those without. To quote George Orwell’s Animal Farm, “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Some cultures lean toward egalitarianism and equality (what Hofstede referred to as a small power distance), while other cultures lean toward elitism, where a few members of society control the subordinate masses (a large power distance). Hofstede measured Power Distance on what he called the Power Distance Index (PDI), which ranged from 1-100, 1 representing cultures with small power distances and 100 representing cultures with large power distances.

Below is a comparison of some of the characteristics found in cultures with small versus large power distances:

Cultures with small power distances tend to be more Democratic, have less income inequality, a larger middle class, those in power tend to be younger, and innovations are more frequently proposed by subordinate members. Conversely, cultures with large power distances tend by be more Oligarchical, have greater income inequality, a small middle class, those in power tend to be older, and innovations must be supported by the hierarchy.

The social ties which bind the members of a society to one another vary from culture to culture. Many cultures lean toward individualism—where the ties between individuals are loose and everyone is expected to look after oneself and one’s immediate family (father, mother, children). Conversely, many societies lean toward collectivism—where individuals are part of strong in-groups (including the family, extended family, and sometimes entire villages). A culture’s Social Dependence is a measure of the extent to which individuals are dependent upon community ties.

Below is a comparison of some of the characteristics found in individualist versus collectivist societies:

The measurement of a culture’s Individualism Values (IDV) again ranges from 1-100 and can only be measured relative to other societies. Individualist societies tend to be wealthier (placing a higher emphasis on profit), have a faster-paced lifestyle, have greater human rights, and a greater freedom of the press. Collectivist societies tend to be poorer (placing a higher emphasis on relationships), have slower-paced lifestyles, fewer human rights, and a lower freedom of the press. It is also worth noting the greater use of the word “I” in the language systems of individualist cultures. English, for example, is the only language that capitalizes the word “I.”

There is a correlation between a culture’s IDV and its Power Distance, where countries with smaller power distances tend to be more individualistic and vice versa. This turns out to be mainly an effect of the distribution of wealth.

This dimension can be a bit tricky, and it is essential to understand the distinction here between gender and sex. Gender (how a person identifies on the spectrum of masculinity versus femininity) is not to be confused with a person’s physiological birth sex (male versus female). This distinction allows the possibility for men to be feminine and women to be masculine (or any other combination).

To make this perhaps more confusing, Hofstede uses the terms “feminine” and “masculine” to refer to the amount of separation in emotional meaning between those born male or female. For example, a masculine society is one in which emotional gender roles are more distinct (there is a large separation between what it means to be male versus female), and a feminine society is one in which emotional gender roles are less distinct (the lines are blurred between what is expected of males and females).

Below is a comparison of some of the characteristics found in feminine versus masculine cultures:

Much like Social Dependence, a culture’s gender roles can only be measured in relation to other cultures. This is measured by the Masculinity Index (MAS) on a scale of 1-100. Cultures with greater femininity tend to be more literate, have fewer people below the poverty line, spend more on aid to poor countries, and have greater leisure time. Cultures with greater masculinity tend to be less literate, have more people below the poverty line, spend less on foreign aid, and spend more time working. There is also a difference in the perception of poverty, with masculine societies perceiving poverty as the result of laziness and feminine societies perceiving it as the result of bad luck. However, there appears to be no relationship between masculinity and degree of wealth. It is also worth noting that this is the only data set where Hofstede’s results differed when polling men versus women.

The dimension of Uncertainty Avoidance holds many implications related cultural xenophobia, the strictness of rules and regulations, and the level of tolerance toward people’s differences. A culture is generally accepting of uncertainty if its people are open to change and new experiences. Conversely, a culture is generally avoiding of uncertainty if its people are hesitant or closed to these things.

Below is a comparison of some of the characteristics found in uncertainty accepting versus uncertainty avoiding cultures:

Some fascinating correlations occur between Uncertainty Accepting and Avoiding cultures: Accepting societies tend to have less alcoholism, fewer doctors, slower drivers, more humor in advertising and a perception of the wealthy as less corrupt. Conversely, Avoiding societies tend to have more alcoholism, more doctors, faster drivers, more authority figures in advertising, and a perception of the wealthy as being corrupt.

This dimension is measured by the Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) on a scale of 1-100. There appears to be an oscillation in scores over time worldwide, with scores going up during periods of crisis/war and going down during periods of peace/stability.

Time Orientation, as a dimension of culture, was added in 1991 to Hofstede’s original four dimensions. In collaboration with Michael Bond at the University of Hong Kong, additional insights were collected from questionnaires made by Chinese scholars which revealed additional cultural trends from 23 countries. Years later, using data collected by Dr. Michael Minkov from the 1994-2004 World Value Survey, the number of countries from which data was collected jumped from 23 to 93, further solidifying these patterns.

As a scale of measure, Time Orientation refers to a society’s focus on short-term versus long-term goals. If a culture is short-term oriented, it fosters virtues related to the past and present, such as conservatism, nationalism, and tradition. If a culture is long-term oriented, it fosters virtues oriented toward future rewards, such as perseverance, saving, thriftiness, and adaptability to changing circumstances.

Below is a comparison of some of the characteristics found in short-term versus long-term oriented cultures:

This is measured by the Long-Term Orientation Index (LTO) on a scale from 1-100. In short-term oriented cultures, economic growth in poor countries is more stagnant, secondary school students score lower in math but rate themselves higher, and investors prefer to deal in shares and mutual funds. In long-term oriented cultures, economic growth goes faster in poor countries, secondary school students score higher in math but rate themselves lower, and investors prefer to deal in real-estate and family businesses.

These traits are usually transferred from parents to their children and rarely change into adulthood. LTO scores also appear to remain stable over time, in spite of enormous technological changes and globalization.

Also influenced by the data contributed by Dr. Minkov and the World Value Survey, the dimension of Indulgence was added to the previous five dimensions by the year 2004. This data uncovered patterns which so far had not been found in the previous dimensions regarding the level of restraint versus indulgence exhibited by the members of societies. Restrained societies, it was found, tended to suppress the gratification of basic human desires by strict regulations and social norms. Indulgent societies, conversely, tended to allow relatively free gratification of human desires, emphasizing the need to have fun and enjoy life.

Below is a comparison of some of the characteristics found in restrained versus indulgent cultures:

There is no absolute standard by which to judge a culture’s level of indulgence, and so this can only be judged by comparing one society to another. This is done by the Indulgence Versus Restraint Index (IVR) on a scale of 1-100. Restrained societies, in this comparison, tend to have lower crime rates but larger police forces, lower birth rates, less obesity, and a propensity toward nationalism. Indulgent societies, on the other hand, tend to have higher crime rates but smaller police forces, higher birth rates, higher obesity levels, and greater tolerance of foreign cultures. Restrained societies also place a higher importance on maintaining order while indulgent societies place a higher importance on the freedom of speech.

Societies have become more indulgent worldwide over the years, but have stayed relatively the same, so this rating can be assumed to be stable over time.