TEORI KONTEMPORARI NILAI SOSIAL VALUES AS A MAIN FRAMEWORK OF CULTURE The most acceptable definition of culture among scholars

from several disciplines is based upon shared value systems (e.g. Hofstede, 1980; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961).Values are regarded as the nucleus of culture. Kluckhohn (1951) places values at a central position in his definition of culture as the following: ‘Culture consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values ‘(p.86). THE HOFSTEDE PROJECT The seminal study by Geert Hofstede during the late 1960s and early 1970's and the publication of his classic study entitled ‘Culture's Consequences’ in 1980 has been a major step in addressing values as a dimension for crosscultural comparison between nations. His work contributed to the mapping of culture based on shared cultural values. Hofstede (2001) defines culture as 'the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another' (p.9). In other words, cultures are conceptualised in terms of meanings, and cross-cultural comparisons are analysed based on the shared values represented by members from each culture. The original study was a worldwide morale survey of work-related values of IBM employees in more than 70 nations and involving some 117,000 respondents. After establishing some equivalence in terms of demographics, Hofstede reduced his sample to 72,215 respondents, which represent 40 nations (Hofstede, 1980). Subsequently, he enlarged his sample to cover a total of fifty national cultures and three regions (Hofstede, 1983). However, his data lacked representative samples from the former Communist bloc and most of Africa but until very recently has been unrivalled (Smith & Bond, 1998) in terms of global coverage.

The four cultural-level dimensions values are:Power Distance,Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism Collectivism, and Masculinity-Femininity (Hofstede, 1980). Power Distance refers to the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations accept that power is distributed unequally. This factor referred to the degree of inequality between a supervisor and his/her subordinate and was derived from questions addressing perceptions of (a) a supervisor’s style of decision making, (b) co-workers’ fear to disagree with superiors,and (c) the type of decision making that subordinates prefer in their supervisor. Uncertainty avoidance refers to the extent to which people feel threatened by ambiguous situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these. This factor was derived from questions addressing (a) rule orientation, (b) employment stability, and (c) stress. Individualism-Collectivism refers to the different value orientations between individualist and collectivist cultures. Individualist cultures are those in which individuals see themselves as having relatively separate identity whereas collectivist cultures are those in which identity is more strongly defined by long lasting group memberships. This factor was derived from questions addressing work goals (e.g., having a job which leaves sufficient time for my personal or family life, having considerable freedom to adapt my own approach to the job). Masculinity refers to a situation in which the dominant values in society are assertiveness such as money and success whereas Femininity refers to nurturance values such as caring for others and the quality of life. The example item related to endorsement of masculine values is ‘advancement and earnings’ as more important as opposed to feminine value items such as interpersonal

aspects, rendering service, and the physical environment as more important goals.

Although Hofstede’s study has been criticised, its significant contribution or ‘consequences’ to the development of contemporary theory in cross-cultural psychology remains undisputable. The dimension of Individualism-Collectivism has attracted a good deal of subsequent interest. Triandis has popularised individualism-collectivism (I-C) in cross-cultural psychology with a research program that started in the early 1980s. Hui and Triandis (1986) extended Hofstede’s definition of individualism-collectivism based on seven categories of belief and behaviours; 1) ‘Consideration of implications of one’s own decision and/or action for other people, 2) Sharing of material sources, 3) Sharing of nonmaterial sources, 4) Susceptibility to social influence, 5) Self-presentation and face-work, 6) Sharing of outcomes, and 7) Feeling of involvement in others’ lives ‘ (pp. 229-231). Accordingly, they defined collectivism as referring to ‘the subordination of individual goals to the goals of a collective, and a sense of harmony, interdependence, and concern for others. Individualism is the subordination of the goals of the collectivities to individual goals, and sense of independence and lack of concern for others’ (p 244). Triandis, Leung, Villareal and Clark (1985) proposed the terms ‘allocentrism’ and ‘idiocentrism’ to replace collectivism and individualism, respectively, at the individual level. They later distinguished between vertical and horizontal individualism and vertical and horizontal collectivism (Triandis, 1995). Horizontal individualism-collectivism emphasises equality, whereas vertical individualismcollectivism emphasises hierarchy. These categories will help us to differentiate

among individuals on the dimension of I-C and to make comparison between different features of individualistic or collectivistic societies. Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) theory of self-construal built upon the I-C distinction. This theory distinguishes two aspects of self-construal. The first aspect distinguishes between independence versus interdependence. They described independent self-construal as the individual’s view of him or herself as an autonomous, bounded, unitary agent – a self that retains the same abilities, attributes, and goals regardless of social context. In contrast, interdependent self-construal is defined as flexible and variable, changing between contexts and relationships. Collectivist cultures are characterised by independent selfconstrual, whereas individualist cultures feature independent self-construal. The second aspect of self-construal is said to be that of abstraction versus concreteness. Members of collectivist cultures tend a) to describe themselves in very specific and contextualised ways, and (b) to experience relatedness with others as a fundamental part of themselves, to the extent that the self is defined very specifically and uniquely within each social relationship. Individualist cultures, on the other hand, stress the inner, stable, and self-determining (abstract) nature of self. Self-construal theory has become one of the most influential and most cited theories in cross-cultural psychology. The theory has been used to explain the greater emphasis on self-enhancement in the United Sates and the greater tendency towards self-criticism in Japan (Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997).

CHINESE CULTURE CONNECTION The possibility that Hofstede’s study might be biased toward Western values inspired a group of scholars interested in Chinese culture and values, who formed a consortium based in the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987). The aim of the Chinese Culture Connection’s study

was to create an indigenous scale to ascertain whether values originating from within an Eastern culture would correlate with values found in Western culture. Led by Professor Michael Bond, these scholars collected traditional Chinese values and constructed a scale called the Chinese Value Scale (CVS). This scale consisted of 40 items of values and was administered to students from 23 countries including 20 countries that had participated in Hofstede’s study. An empirical comparison of values derived from the two separate instruments was made for this sample of 20 countries. Based on Hofstede’s culture-level analysis, an ecological factor analysis was performed and yielded a value taxonomy of four dimensions; 1) Social Integration (i.e., tolerance of others, harmony with others, non-competitiveness); 2) Confucian Work Dynamism (i.e., ordering relationships, thrift, persistence, having a sense of shame); 3) Human-Heartedness (i.e., kindness, patience, courtesy), and; 4) Moral Discipline (i.e., moderation, having few desires, keeping oneself disinterested and pure). The study also found that three of the factors in the CVS correlated substantially with three of Hofstede’s value dimensions; 1. Social Integration related positively to Individualism and negatively with Power Distance; 2. Human-Heartedness related to Masculinity (Feminity), and; 3. Moral Discipline related to High Power Distance.

However, Confucian Work Dynamism derived from the CVS did not show any correlations with any of Hofstede’s dimension. Confucian Work Dynamism refers to Confucian work ethics and is represented by the endorsement of such items as persistence, thrift, and having a sense of shame. Hofstede (1991) accepts this new dimension as a fifth dimension of cultural variation but renamed it as ‘Long-Term Orientation’. The items emphasise the virtue of taking a longterm perspective for higher scores and the low score focuses on the present and the past. In sum, it is clear that although Hofstede’s four values seem to be universal across countries, Confucian work dynamism is a value indigenous to Eastern region countries that is not captured in Hofstede’s study. SCHWARTZ’S VALUES SURVEY A series of large-scale cross-cultural studies by Shalom Schwartz and his colleagues (Schwartz, 1992, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995) contributed a significant development in the study of values. Contrary to Hofstede’s inductive approach, Schwartz’s main aim was to identify a theory-driven structure of values that would generalise across cultures. He made a detailed review of earlier theory and studies of values from both Western and non-Western literatures. Schwartz also offered an alternative approach to the study of cultural differences by focusing on value differences both at the level of individuals and at the culture-level.

A major feature of Schwartz’s theory of values is the view of values as motivational goals. Schwartz and Bilsky (1990, 1987) proposed that the crucial content aspect of a value is the type of goal or motivational concern that it expresses. These goals arise from the needs of three universal requirements of human existence; (a) needs of individuals as biological organisms, (b) requisites for coordinated social interactions, and (c) survival and welfare needs of groups. Groups and individuals represent these needs cognitively in the form of values about which they communicate in order to explain, coordinate and rationalise behaviours.

TABLE 2-1 Motivational Types of Values Power : Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources (social power, authority, wealth). Achievement : Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards (successful, capable, ambitious, influential). Hedonism : Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself (pleasure, enjoying life). Stimulation : Excitement, novelty, and challenging in life (daring, a varied life, an exciting life). Self-Direction : Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring (creativity, freedom, independent, curious, choosing own goals). Universalism : Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature (broadminded, wisdom, social justice, equality, a world of peace, a world of beauty, unity with nature, protecting the environment). Benevolence : Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact (helpful, honest, forgiving, loyal, responsible). Tradition : Respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self (humble, accepting my portion in life, devout, respect for tradition, moderate). Conformity : Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms (politeness, obedient, self-discipline, honouring parents and elders). Security : Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self (family security, national security, social order, clean, reciprocation of favours). Note: Adapted from Schwartz and Sagiv (1995). Besides the view of values as motivational goals, another important feature of Schwartz's theory is the circular structure. The circular structure of values seen in Figure 2-1 represents dynamic relations among values. According to the circular structure, the pursuit of each type of values has psychological, practical, and social consequences that may conflict or be congruent with the pursuit of other value types. For instance, the pursuit of conformity values is likely to be compatible with the pursuit of security values; actions intended to promote

obedience and self-discipline are likely to foster the maintenance of social order and family security.


Self-Direction Universalism

Stimulation Benevolence


Conformity Tradition






Figure 2-1: Theoretical Model of Structure of Relations among 10 Motivational Types of Values Note: Adapted from Schwartz, 1994 On the other hand, the pursuit of tradition values conflicts with the pursuit of stimulation values; accepting cultural and religious customs is likely to inhibit seeking novelty, challenge, and excitement. Thus, the circular structure demonstrates that compatible value types are in close proximity (adjacent) going around the circle, while conflicting types radiate in opposing directions from the centre. The location of tradition outside conformity reflects that these two value types share a single motivational goal – both promoting self-subordination to social expectations or norms. The total pattern of relations of conflict and compatibility among value priorities are organised on two orthogonal, bipolar dimensions. As shown in Figure 2-1, the first dimension – Openness to Change

versus Conservation – opposes values that emphasise own independent thought and action and favour change (Self-Direction and Stimulation) to values that emphasise submissive self-restriction, preservation of traditional practices, and protection of stability (Security, Conformity, and Tradition). The second dimension-Self-Transcendence versus Self-Enhancement – opposes values that emphasise acceptance of others as equals and concern for their welfare (Universalism and Benevolence) to values that emphasise the pursuit of one’s relative success and dominance over others (Power and Achievement). Hedonism values share elements of both Openness to Change and SelfEnhancement. However, analyses within each of 47 cultures established that the 44 single values listed in Table 2-1 have nearly equivalent meanings across cultures (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). This implies that SVS does have adequately equivalent meanings in most nations and provides a useful way of comparing nations and cultures. This offers a firm basis to undertake culture or nation-level analyses. A country-level analysis was next performed after averaging the responses for each separate value within each country. Schwartz (1999) reported that a Smallest Space Analysis was performed on data from over 35,000 respondents from 122 samples in 49 nations. As shown in Figure 2-2, seven country-level value types were identified; 1) Harmony, 2) Egalitarianism, 3) Intellectual Autonomy, 4) Affective Autonomy, 5) Mastery, 6) Hierarchy, and 7) Conservatism.

unity with nature * protect environment*

*world of beauty *family security respect for* tradition *helpful CONSERVATISM *social order *clean *moderate forgiving* honour elders * *national *politeness security *protecting public image reciprocation * of favours *devout *self-discipline *humble authority* *successful *obedient wisdom * *capable

*world of peace


*social justice *honest *responsible *freedom

accept portion in life * equality* loyal*


broadminded* *curious

choosing* own goals *varied life *exciting life *pleasure

influential* *wealth *social power

*independent *ambitious



*enjoying life

Figure 2-2: The Structure of Culture-Level Value Types For 122 sample (49 nations) Source: Schwartz (1999, p. 31) The seven country-level values could be summarised as three bipolar dimensions. These are named as Autonomy-Embeddedness, HierarchyEgalitarian Commitment and Mastery-Harmony. The emergent structure was completely different to that obtained in the individual-level analyses. For example, at the individual level, the location of humble and authority values are located at opposite sides of the plot, indicating that those who endorse authority

are not likely at the same time to endorse humble as a guiding principle in their life. As shown in Figure 2-2, however, these two values are located in the same location at the culture-level, demonstrating their positive correlation between each other. These values relate to each other through a system of hierarchically ordered roles at the country level. The social system will run more smoothly if people accept authority as a desirable basis for organising human relations and humility as the appropriate response toward those with greater authority. Schwartz (1994) explained that ‘individual-level value dimensions presumably reflect the psychological dynamics of conflict and compatibility that individuals experience in the course of pursuing their different values in everyday life. In contrast, culture-level dimensions presumably reflect the different solutions that societies evolve to the problems of regulating human activities, the different ways that institutional emphases and investments are patterned and justified in one culture compared with another’(p.92).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful