How much woe when we go?

International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 1

How Much Woe When We Go:

A Quantitative Method for
Predicting Culture Shock

Lawrence R. Zeitlin1

Running head: How much woe when we go: A quantitative method for predicting culture shock.

Mailing address: Lawrence Zeitlin; 12 Brook Lane; Peekskill, NY 10566-6502

Telephone: (914) 737-4905 FAX: (914) 737-4905 e-mail:lrzeitlin@aol.com

1
Graduate Center - City University of New York; New York, NY 10010

ABSTRACT

Culture shock is defined as the confusion and discomfort caused by the conflict in perceived
motives and expected behaviors between the home culture and the foreign culture. Several
quantitative and graphical methods employing techniques of cluster analysis and similarity mapping
are offered for predicting the magnitude of culture shock between pairs of countries using data
extracted from Hofstede's 1980-83 studies of national cultural values. Implications for business,
politics, and personal stress management are discussed.

Keywords: Culture shock, national values, cross cultural research, cluster analysis, similarity
mapping.
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 2

INTRODUCTION

Anyone with first hand experience in foreign travel understands the woe of culture shock, the
realization that expected behaviors and perceived values of the new environment are disturbingly
dissimilar from those of home. Most of us expect that there will be physical and climatic
differences in the environment when we travel. The language and the coinage may be unfamiliar.
The food may be unusual. Foreigners may even drive on the other side of the road. But, given a
little time, we can adjust to all these differences and even look forward to meeting the challenge as
one of the joys of travel.

It is much harder to deal with the subtle differences in motives and values encountered during
residence in a foreign culture. We spend a lifetime learning what to expect from others and what
others expect from us. We strive to meet the demands of our society and our culture. Other cultures
make different demands and other people have different expectations. Culture shock may be
defined as the confusion and discomfort caused by the conflict in perceived motives and expected
behaviors between the home culture and the foreign culture. Individuals within all cultures have
unique and idiosyncratic personalities which are often a source of misunderstanding. Cultural
values, however, are common to almost everyone in a given culture and establish a general theme
of behavior. Personality differences are simply variations on that theme.

Is there a way to predict the amount of culture shock that someone would experience upon
travel to another country? Let us ignore the physical differences between societies and restrict the
culture shock concept to cultural ideas and values. Such a prediction depends upon assessment and
quantification of value systems of different countries. The amount of culture shock that a traveler
will experience will be proportionate to the quantitative difference in value systems between the
home country and the visited country.

In a summary article, Adler (1984) classified a variety of approaches taken by researchers of

cultural values. Parochial research is that conducted in a single culture, generalizing the findings to
all other cultures. It assumes universal motives and behaviors. It is the model used by businessmen
and politicians in presuming that the values of one culture can be transferred without modification
to another. Ethnocentric research is the search for similarities between cultures, exploring the
features of home country culture that can be used abroad. Comparative research searches for both
similarities and differences between cultures in order to determine which values hold across
cultures and which do not. Comparative research seeks different prescriptions for behavior in each
culture depending on the values and motives uncovered.

The most encompassing comparative research study in recent years was that conducted by
Geert Hofstede (1980, 1983). In his book "Culture's Consequences", and in a follow up paper,
he describes a massive 53 country, 160,000 subject study on a multinational corporation. Based on
the data collected from an attitude survey of cultural values administered to employees, Hofstede
was able to isolate the following four dimensions of culture:
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 3

INDIVIDUALISM/COLLECTIVISM - the nature of the relationship between

an individual and fellow human beings.

POWER DISTANCE - the acceptance of the institutionalized difference in power

between individuals.

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE - the degree of tolerance toward the

unpredictable, or to deviations from the norm in behavior.

MASCULINITY/FEMININITY - the acceptance of masculine (assertive,

acquisitive) values or feminine (supportive, cooperative) values.

After isolating these dimensions, Hofstede quantified the dimensions for each country based on
the specific values exhibited by survey respondents. National cultures were categorized by the
interplay of these dimensions. While it is true that Hofstede's subjects were all employees of large
businesses, he felt that they were representative of "middle class" values in the societies in which
they belonged. Most of the people whom a typical business traveler would meet would come from
this broad group.

METHOD

A graphic display of the similarity between cultures can be generated by performing a cluster
analysis of Hofstede's numerical measures for the cultural dimensions of each country. Cluster
analysis is a technique often used in the organization of complex data into meaningful structures.
(Schiffman, et. al., 1981) A quantitative index of cultural differences is achieved through the
pairing and matching of the foreign cultures into related groups. In this method the numerical
scores for individual dimensions are normalized. A computer program searches through the list of
countries and finds the two whose values are most alike. The "normalized" distance between the
numerical values for this pair are calculated and stored. As soon as two countries are paired
together, they form one single unit with averaged values and the list of items is reduced by one.
This new combined unit is allowed to find its own matches. Each group always starts off with one
pair. The pair grows by adding new countries and country combinations. The program continues
to compare the groups and in the end it relates all of the countries in a single unit.

The graphic result of this matching is a tree diagram based on the similarities between items.
Figure 1 shows such a diagram plotting the relationship between national cultures. For the sake of
clarity, the tree is shown lying on its side. The numbers at the nodes or junction points represents
the value distance between the joined groups. The actual number is arbitrary, depending upon the
scale used to quantify the values but it is linear and provides the ability to make ratio scale
judgments of cultural distance. Thus a node with a value of 2 represents twice the cultural distance
of a node with the value of 1.
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 4

.21 .88
.66

1.13
.68 1.54
.10 .73
2.80

2.95 3.47
.57
.73
5.56

.70
.6

.46

1.11
6.50
2.10
1.28 6.82
.08 .40
.50 .74
.85
.88
1.91
3.36 6.49

.13
.86

2.80

.79
1.69
.87
.41

Figure 1. Cluster tree of cultural similarities. Hofstede ‘80 value dimensions.

Figure 1 supports the classification of national cultures into groups, with similar cultures
clustered together. Anglo-Saxon , Western European, Hispanic and Asian clusters emerge. Japan
is revealed as culturally unique, more distant from all other cultures than all are distant from each
other. An estimate of probable cultural shock can be made by finding the numerical value of the
node on the shortest path joining the home country and the visited country. The smaller this
distance, the greater the cultural similarity and the less the culture shock that one would experience
upon travel to this country. Thus the United States (USA) and Australia (AUL) with a cultural
distance of .08 are quite similar, the United States and Japan (JAP), with a distance of 6.82 are
culturally remote.
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 5

Our factor analysis of Hofstede's 1980 data discovered that three of the dimensions were
highly correlated and represented essentially the same factor. This factor (F1), was labeled
AUTHORITARIANISM. It contains most of the components that Hofstede ascribes to the
individualism/collectivism dimension, the uncertainty avoidance dimension, and the power distance
dimension. The second factor (F2), was labeled "MACHISMO" or GENDER
DIFFERENTIATION and consists of most of the masculine/feminine components of
assertiveness, aggressiveness, acquisitiveness, and achievement. The emergence of only two
factors permits plotting the results on a two dimensional map. Table 1 below, shows these factors.

COUNTRY LABEL HOFSTEDE'S DIMENSIONS FACTOR ANALYSIS

Individual Power Uncert. Masculine Factor 1 Factor 2
Collective Distance Avoidance Feminine Authoritarian Gender Diff.
Argentina ARG 45 50 84 54 0.24 0.343
Australia AUL 90 35 51 63 0.769 -1.28
Austria AUT 55 11 68 79 1.39 -0.923
Belgium BEL 75 65 94 52 0.393 0.245
Brazil BRA 38 67 77 48 -0.109 0.749
Canada CAN 80 40 46 52 0.156 -1.046
Chile CHL 22 62 84 29 -1.098 1.051
Columbia COL 13 66 79 65 0.57 1.208
Denmark DEN 75 14 26 16 -1.747 -1.759
Finland FIN 62 35 59 29 -1.009 -0.621
France FRA 70 69 84 41 -0.216 0.296
Great Britain GBR 89 31 34 68 0.916 -1.585
Germany GER 67 35 64 62 0.646 -0.671
Greece GRE 33 56 110 57 0.449 1.051
Hong Kong HOK 24 68 29 59 0.099 0.365
India IND 48 78 39 57 0.21 0.271
Iran IRA 40 55 60 42 -0.486 0.224
Ireland IRE 71 26 34 69 0.849 -1.357
Israel ISR 55 13 78 46 -0.157 -0.717
Italy ITA 77 49 75 72 1.262 -0.413
Japan JAP 45 55 95 98 2.433 0.567
Mexico MEX 30 82 83 72 1.051 1.285
Netherlands NET 81 36 52 20 -1.363 -1.043
Norway NOR 68 30 51 11 -1.89 -0.936
New Zealand NZL 79 19 45 60 0.509 -1.499
Pakastan PAK 14 54 68 50 -0.218 0.792
Peru PER 15 62 88 40 -0.588 1.228
Phillipines PHI 31 94 44 67 0.633 0.994
Portugal POR 25 61 103 30 -0.938 1.233
South Africa SAF 65 48 45 67 0.795 -0.619
Singapore SIN 20 75 8 47 -0.604 0.311
Spain SPA 53 58 84 40 -0.38 0.377
Sweden SWE 71 30 28 7 -2.18 -1.305
Switzerland SWI 69 35 59 68 0.924 -0.782
Taiwan TAI 15 56 70 45 -0.442 0.848
Thailand THA 21 61 64 34 -0.963 0.77
Turkey TUR 36 64 84 44 -0.284 0.821
United States USA 91 38 43 65 0.836 -1.345
Venezula VEN 13 82 78 75 1.068 1.531
Yugoslavia YUG 26 76 88 19 -1.523 1.341

Table 1. Factor weightings of Hofstede ‘80 value dimensions.

How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 6

Figure 2 is a "similarity" map of world cultural patterns using the new factors. The distance
between countries represents their factorial cultural value distance. Most of the countries are near their
neighbors on the branches of the cultural tree. Japan is alone on the right hand side of the map. The
greatest linear distance is between Japan and Sweden, implying that the greatest mutual cultural shock
would be between those countries.

Figure 2. “Similarity map” of world cultures based on value factor weightings.

The national cultures still cluster together according to similarity groupings. While not quite as
amenable to prescriptive use as Hofstede's original conception, an astute traveler could assume that
culture shock would be small between countries close together on the graph, but might be greater
for national cultures more distant.

A different, but perhaps more basic, approach to graphic representation of culture differences is
to forego the use of interpreted or factor analyzed data entirely. Such processed data filters subject
responses through the bias of our own culture. While the values survey module in Hofstede's
original data collection instrument was nominally exploratory, his interpretation of the results and
the derived dimensions showed strong influences of then contemporary (1970's) management
theory.
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 7

Fortunately Hofstede published the national average raw data for his studies. Using the
national means of the 14 value relevant questions in the survey for the 53 covered countries, it is
possible to compute the distances of countries from each other in a hypothetical value space. By
plotting the geometric distances between this n-dimensional set of data points and presenting them
as a two dimensional map, it is easier to visualize the relationships inherent in this complex data
set. (Kendall, 1971; Spencer, 1986)

Distances between cultural value points I and J are computed using the formula:
Dist. = ((value 1 i - value 1j)^2 + ((value 2 i - value 2j)^2 + ((value 3 i - value 3j)^2 + ...((value ni - value nj)^2)^.5

Such a computation leads to a very large table of relative distances. For a list of N data points
the number of distances computed is N(N-1)/2. Ten points yield 45 distances, 20 points yield 190
distances, 40 points yield 780 distances. The table of 1378 cells generated for the 53 countries in
Hofstede's data make for difficult interpretation. However, just as a highway map can be generated
from the table of distances in the highway atlas, a cultural distance map can be generated from the
value distances. Figure 3 is just such a map. The national cultural groups are arranged so that the
distances between each are proportionate to their geometric distance apart in the value space.

Representation of this multidimensional space on a two dimensional surface is subject to error.

In plotting such a distance map, the computer attempts to arrange points in a form which satisfies
the requirements of the table. Since it is unlikely that the two dimensional map projection will
match the multidimensional nature of the data, the computer rearranges the plotted points in
successive iterations until the closest match is achieved. The criterion for ending the iterative
process is a decrease in percentage error between map and table of less than 0.1% in successive
iterations.

The computer program that generated the map adjusted distances in an iterative fashion to
minimize the overall root mean square error. In this case, it took 39 iterations to reduce the error to
23.4%. The fact that this error is relatively small gives credence to the two factor interpretation of
Hofstede's data. Comparison of Figures 2 and 3 show that many nations are in the same relative
position. Similar affinity blocks emerge.

The bullseye superimposed on the map represents the variability of cultural distance. Individual
national value distances are compared with a hypothetical average set of human cultural values. In
essence, this value set is that of the trunk of the value tree of Figure 1. Each ring of the bullseye is
one standard deviation. The inner ring of the double ring pair is at 1.95 standard deviations. The
center of the bullseye is at the mean of human values. Ironically, the nation with the value set
closest to the average of all humanity was pre-revolutionary Iran.

If the standard deviation bullseye is centered over the home country, it is possible to graphically
depict the possibility of culture shock. This is a simple linear transformation of the data. By adding
a constant to each value set, the origin of the bullseye is shifted without changing the standard
deviation.
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 8

Figure 3. World cultural map based on Hofstede ‘83 raw data.

The additional countries included in this analysis are:

ARA Saudi Arabia IDO Indonesia PAN Panama

COS Costa Rica JAM Jamaica SAL El Salvador
EAF East Africa KOR Korea URU Uruguay
EQA Equador MAL Malasia WAF West Africa
GUA Guatemala
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 9

Figure 4. World cultural map. Standard deviation rings centered on USA.

Figure 4 shows the bullseye centered over the value set of the USA. Relatively little culture
shock will be experienced for countries within the one standard deviation ring. The traveler to
Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Canada, or Ireland may find some value differences but
hardly enough to be described as shocking. Most western European countries lie within the two
standard deviation ring, France, Spain, and Belgium being the exceptions. As expected, most
Asian and third world countries are three or more standard deviations distant in value space from
the USA. The traveler can anticipate a high degree of culture shock on an extended visit to such
countries.
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 10

Minimization of culture shock will be a matter of everyday concern when the European
economy is combined by the end of this decade. Figure 5 is a culture tree showing the members of
the European Community plus several neighboring countries. The United States is included for
comparison. The tree shows that Europe is divided into three main cultural blocks, probably
determined by geography, religion, and amount of industrialization.

Figure 5. European culture tree.

Table 2 is the value distance table of European countries. By entering Table 2 with the home
country and reading across to the visited country the probable amount of culture shock can be
predicted. Both the actual value distances calculated from Hofstede's national average data and the
adjusted distances are shown. Because European countries share many values, the adjustment
necessary to plot a map has been reduced to 19.5%. This is analogous to the reduced distortion that
a two dimensional geographic map displays when representing a smaller portion of the earth's
surface.
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 11

Table 2. Value distance table for European countries.

The scale units on the table are arbitrary measures of distance in the value space but they are
clearly proportionate to the cultural adjustment that the traveler would be required to make on a trip
from the home to the visited country. An American visitor to Great Britain would be required to
make only 12 units of adjustment. Visiting Yugoslavia, the same traveler would be required to
make 99 units of adjustment. Switzerland and Germany present the smallest value difference
between countries. Except for passing through a passport control on the German - Swiss border,
the traveler might be hardly aware of the eight units of cultural difference.

Figure 6 is a "similarity" map of Europe based on the data of Table 2. With the standard
deviation bullseye centered on the hypothetical mean European culture, the more industrialized
and/or Protestant ethic countries are found in the left two quadrants, the less industrialized and/or
Catholic countries are found in the right two quadrants. The adjustment necessary to draw the map
in two dimensions can be seen from examining the difference between equivalent cells of Table 1.
The observed value distance of 12 units between the USA and GBR has been adjusted to 10 units
on the map. The distance of 8 units between GER and SWI is adjusted to 7 units. The distance of
99 units between USA and YUG is represented on the map as 102 units. Given the typical
imprecision of value measurement, the 19.5% distortion of the value space is negligible. Small
differences between countries infer little culture shock; large differences, significant culture shock.
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 12

Figure 6. Cultural similarity mape of Europe. Hofstede ‘83 data.

The map is interesting from a geopolitical perspective as well as a cultural one. The major
country closest to the value average is Germany, a fact which helps explain its position as the
major player in the European Community. France and Italy are more than one standard deviation
from the European mean and Great Britain is exactly on the 1.95 standard deviation ring. Given the
accepted statistical interpretation, this implies that the British perceive their cultural values as
distinctly different from those of the average European and may well explain their emotional
reluctance to join the Common Market. Denmark, even more distant from the average than Britain
has already voted to reject total consolidation. Yugoslavia, geographically close to the rest of
Europe, is perceived as a cultural outsider. European diffidence to the political crisis in Yugoslavia
may be attributed, in part, to a lack of cultural empathy.

An American perspective on probable culture shock is graphically represented by the similarity

map of Figure 7. Recentering the bullseye on the USA reveals that the American traveler would
experience negligible culture shock visiting Ireland and Great Britain and significant culture shock
in Yugoslavia, Portugal, and Greece.
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 13

Figure 7. Cultural similarity map of Europe, standard deviation rings centered on USA.

DISCUSSION

The concept of the value distance of cultures, as presented in this paper, is useful for many
purposes. Nominally addressing the culture shock issue, it has applicability whenever products,
processes, or politics from one culture are to be transferred to another. Marketing managers need
the information to predict the successful transfer of products or consumer goods. Organizational
psychologists could make use of the concept of cultural distance to determine the acceptability of
management policies and/or the additional personal stresses encountered when employees native to
one culture are transferred to another. American political scientists could use quantitative cultural
information to determine which US mediated interventions have the best chance of success.
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 14

The described approach to the quantitative and graphic representation of culture is a universal
one but the specific representations of cultural groups in the value space and the tables, maps and
prescriptions derived therefrom are dependent on the database of comparative cultural values used.
Hofstede's data set is oriented primarily toward middle class values important in management
decision making. It was used in this paper both because it was familiar to the behavioral science
community and because it was available in a sufficiently quantitative form to be readily analyzed.
Other value data sets, such as the more general ones included in the Cross Cultural Index, would
almost certainly lead to a modified arrangement of cultures in the value space. Additionally,
national cultures are not as monolithic as represented in this paper. Witness the diversity in values
between Canadian French and Canadian English; between Californians and New Englanders;
between New Yorkers and everyone else. Given suitable data, quantitative representations of the
intranational value space can be as provocative as the international value space.

Technical note:

Cluster analysis and similarity mapping are performed by a matched set of computer programs
available from the author.
How much woe when we go? International Journal of Stress Management, Spring 1996 15

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. (1984). Understanding the ways of understanding: Cross cultural

management methodology reviewer. Advances in International Comparative
Management, Vol. 1, pp. 31-67.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: National Differences in Thinking and

Organizing. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 14 (No. 2), pp. 75-90.

Kendall, D. G. (1971). Construction of maps from 'odd' bits of information. Nature, 231,
pp. 279-284.

Schiffman, S. S., Reynolds, M. L., and Young, F. L. (1981). Introduction to

Multidimensional Scaling. New York: Academic Press.

Spencer, R. (1986). Similarity mapping. Byte, Aug. '86, pp. 85-92