Journal of Consumer Marketing

A test of the validity of Hofstede's cultural framework

Jeffrey G. Blodgett Aysen Bakir Gregory M. Rose
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jeffrey G. Blodgett Aysen Bakir Gregory M. Rose, (2008),"A test of the validity of Hofstede's cultural framework", Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 Iss 6 pp. 339 - 349
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760810902477
Downloaded on: 06 January 2015, At: 12:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10739 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)

Siew Imm Ng, Julie Anne Lee, Geoffrey N. Soutar, (2007),"Are Hofstede's and Schwartz's value frameworks congruent?",
International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 164-180 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330710741802
Katharina Chudzikowski, Gerhard Fink, Wolfgang Mayrhofer, Michael Minkov, Geert Hofstede, (2011),"The evolution
of Hofstede's doctrine", Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 Iss 1 pp. 10-20 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13527601111104269
Francis Harvey, (1997),"National cultural differences in theory and practice: Evaluating Hofstede’s national cultural framework",
Information Technology & People, Vol. 10 Iss 2 pp. 132-146 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593849710174986

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549148 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural
framework
Jeffrey G. Blodgett
School of Business and Economics, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
Aysen Bakir
College of Business, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, USA, and
Gregory M. Rose
Milgard School of Business, University of Washington, Tacoma, Washington, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the reliability and validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework when applied at the individual consumer
level.
Design/methodology/approach – MBA students and faculty in the behavioral sciences were asked to review Hofstede’s cultural instrument and to
indicate which dimension (power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity) each particular item was intended
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)

to reflect. Subjects were also asked to respond to each item, thus indicating their underlying values. The reliability of each dimension was computed,
and the data were factor analyzed to determine whether the various items loaded in a manner that is consistent with Hofstede’s framework, thus
providing evidence as to discriminant and convergent validity.
Findings – This study presents evidence that Hofstede’s cultural instrument lacks sufficient construct validity when applied at an individual level of
analysis. Overall, a majority of the items were lacking in face validity, the reliabilities of the four dimensions were low, and the factor analyses did not
result in a coherent structure.
Research limitations/implications – It is hoped that these findings will eventually lead to a reliable and valid measure that captures the richness of
the various cultural dimensions and can be deployed at the individual and sub-group levels of analysis. Such a measure would be valuable for market
segmentation, and for understanding why consumers from diverse regions and cultures react differently to various marketing tactics.
Originality/value – Given the diversity of the world marketplace, it is essential that marketers have a robust measure of culture so that our
understanding of consumer behavior can keep pace with a rapidly changing environment.

Keywords Culture, Marketing intelligence, Factor analysis

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Over the past 25 years the economy has become increasingly
global, thus resulting in greater heterogeneity of markets and
consumers. This heterogeneity is due, in large part, to
differences across national cultures. In order to better
understand how these differences influence consumer
behavior many academicians have utilized Hofstede’s (1980)
cultural framework. Indeed, Hofstede’s framework has been
applied in a wide variety of consumer marketing contexts;,
e.g. in studies of advertising (Alden et al., 1993; Gregory and
Munch, 1997; Zandpour et al., 1994), complaint behavior
(Liu and McClure, 2001; Mattila and Patterson, 2004),
global brand strategies (Roth, 1995), consumer
innovativeness (Steeenkamp et al., 1999), impulsive buying
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing
25/6 (2008) 339– 349
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]
[DOI 10.1108/07363760810902477]
(Kacen and Lee, 2002), persuasion (Aaker and Maheswaran,
1997), acceptance of new products and innovations (Yeniyurt
and Townsend, 2003; Singh, 2006), service quality
expectations (Laroche et al., 2005), ethical decision making
(Blodgett et al., 2001), and in studies of Chinese consumers
(Piron, 2006), etc. Although other taxonomies have been
developed (e.g., Triandis, 1995; Schwartz, 1994) it is
Hofstede’s framework that has provided the foundation
upon which most cross-cultural marketing and consumer
behavior research has been based.
Although culture was originally conceptualized at an
aggregate, national level; several researchers (e.g.,
Steenkamp, 2001; Schwartz and Ros, 1995) have noted that
there are different layers of culture, and that the concept of
culture can be applied at smaller units of analysis. Craig and
Douglas (2006, p. 336) argue that “. . . the development of
linkages across national borders imply that national culture is
no longer as relevant as the unit of analysis for examining
culture . . . less reliance should be placed on the country as the
unit of analysis”. Similarly; Laroche et al. (2005, p. 282)
assert that “A serious limitation of national cultural indices is
their high level of aggregation, which may hide important
variations, including regional . . . and individual differences
and experiences.” This issue is particularly relevant for
researchers who study consumer behavior, and thus are
interested in cognitions, attitudes, perceptions, and behavior
at an individual and/or sub-group unit of analysis.

339
 A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework
Jeffrey G. Blodgett et al.
With culture being applied at smaller units of analyses it is
appropriate to examine the reliability and validity of
commonly used instruments. Although Hofstede’s
framework was designed to assess culture at a national level,
with “distance scores” representing stable differences between
two countries, it has oftentimes been applied using individual
consumers as the unit of analysis. Given the widespread
application of Hofstede’s framework across the marketing
discipline it would be reasonable to assume that the validity of
the cultural framework has been fully established. However,
despite the many studies that have employed Hofstede’s
framework, it has not been subjected to rigorous tests of
construct validity (as per Churchill (1979) and Schwab
(1980)). This oversight is somewhat surprising, given that one
of the foundations of the scientific method is that tests and
measures be rigorously scrutinized to ascertain their reliability
and validity. Perhaps it is because Hofstede’s cultural
framework is so appealing from a conceptual standpoint that
its psychometric properties have received little scrutiny.
Several studies, though, raise concerns about the empirical
validity of Hofstede’s instrument. Some authors have reported
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)
significant overlap among the various dimensions of culture
(e.g., Bakir et al., 2000), and others have found the reliability
of the dimensions to be low (Kagitcibasi, 1994). Another
recent study (Ng et al., 2007) reported little congruency
between Hofstede’s (1980) and Schwartz’s (1994) cultural
frameworks. Athough Schwartz’s framework supposedly
encompasses Hofstede’s dimensions, and can be applied at
an individual level of analysis, the authors found that the two
frameworks were not significantly correlated. Together, these
findings highlight the need for an investigation of the validity
of Hofstede’s instrument, particularly when applied at a
smaller unit of analysis. As noted by Ng et al. (2007, p. 174):
Researchers attempting to use [culture] . . . as an explanatory variable should
carefully examine the basis or underlying dimensions behind their
calculations . . .
This issue should be of utmost importance to researchers
(and practitioners) who are interested in understanding the
behavior of consumers from different cultural backgrounds,
nationalities, religions, regions, and countries.
Caveat
Before embarking on this investigation it should be noted that
Hofstede’s instrument was not necessarily designed to measure
culture at a more micro level. Over the years, though, many
researchers seem to have overlooked this distinction, and have
applied the various dimensions of culture in an attempt to
explain differences in consumers’ perceptions and behaviors.
Perhaps because many studies incorporated only one or two of
the cultural dimensions discriminant and convergent validity
concerns did not surface. It is not clear, however, that
Hofstede’s instrument meets commonly accepted standards
for reliability and validity (Nunnally, 1978) when applied at
smaller unit of analysis; hence, a rigorous assessment of its
measurement properties is warranted.
Hofstede’s cultural framework
Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) cultural framework is built on the
premise that people from around the world are guided by
different attitudes, beliefs, customs, morals and ethical
standards. Societies are based upon different traditions,
rituals, and religions; and promote different views regarding
family, work, social, and personal responsibilities. Hofstede’s
framework was originally comprised of four dimensions. The
340
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 339 –349
first dimension – individualism/collectivism – is widely
acknowledged as a defining element of culture. In
individualistic societies people are expected to look out after
themselves, whereas in collectivist societies there is a greater
emphasis on group welfare and loyalty. Individualists value
independence and self-expression, and tend to believe that
personal goals and interests are more important than group
interests. In contrast, collectivists tend to view themselves as
members of an extended family or organization, place group
interests ahead of individual needs, and value reciprocation of
favors and respect for tradition. The second dimension –
uncertainty avoidance – represents the extent to which people
feel uncomfortable or threatened by ambiguous and uncertain
situations, and thus create belief systems and institutions in
order to promote conformity. Societies with higher levels of
uncertainty avoidance place greater value on security (e.g.,
financial, social), feel a greater need for consensus and written
rules, and are intolerant of deviations from the norm. In
contrast, individuals with low uncertainty avoidance rely less
on written rules and are more risk tolerant. A third dimension
– masculinity/femininity – refers to the extent to which a
society embraces predominately male or female values. A
masculine society places greater value on success, money, and
personal accomplishments, whereas a feminine society places
greater emphasis on caring for others and quality of life. In a
masculine society individuals are more aggressive, ambitious,
and competitive; whereas individuals in feminine societies are
more modest, humble, and nurturing. A fourth dimension –
power distance – reflects the degree to which a society accepts
that power in organizations is distributed unequally.
Individuals in societies characterized by higher levels of
power distance tend to follow formal codes of conduct and are
reluctant to disagree with superiors. Individuals in societies
that are lower in power distance, on the other hand, do not
feel as constrained by perceived or actual differences in status,
power, or position. (Please note: this paper will not address
the concept of Confucian Dynamism, which Hofstede (2001)
added as a fifth dimension.)
Evolution of Hofstede’s framework
It is informative to understand how Hofstede’s cultural values
instrument was developed. His framework evolved out of
research done at IBM, which had been surveying its
employees in different parts of the world to assess their job
satisfaction and attitudes towards work. In 1967, a team of
researchers was assembled to standardize the surveys in order
to permit longitudinal and cross-national investigation. Led
by Hofstede, the team set out to create a “job attitudes”
instrument that could be used for “organizational
development,” and focused on uncovering differences
between IBM employees in various countries. After
extensive examination of the data, Hofstede attributed some
of the findings to cultural differences. Whereas the
development of the job attitudes instrument was based on
within-culture analyses, it occurred to Hofstede that between-
cultures analyses might reveal additional insights. He thus
began to conceive a framework that could be used to identify
and order countries according to the main dimensions of the
human value system that affects “. . . thinking, organizations,
and institutions in predictable ways” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 11).
Accordingly, he re-analyzed a subset of the original job
attitude items, limiting the scope to those items pertaining to
personal goals and beliefs – which he believed to be fairly
stable – and to some perceptual items. Based on various
analyses of the data Hofstede constructed four separate
 A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework Journal of Consumer Marketing
Jeffrey G. Blodgett et al. Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 339 –349

cultural indices, which he deemed as individualism/ Table I Successful classification rates (percent)
collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, and
uncertainty avoidance. The final result was a 32-item scale, MBA Faculty Combined
all of parts of which have been employed in numerous studies. sample sample sample
(%) (%) (%)

Methodology Individualism/collectivism 42.7 43.7 43.1

Masculinity/femininity 24.6 28.1 24.2
In order to examine the empirical validity of Hofstede’s Power distance 60.0 68.1 63.1
cultural framework an exploratory study – employing two Uncertainty avoidance 26.9 35.9 27.7
different methods – was conducted. Subjects were asked to
Overall success rate 39.7 43.8 41.3
review Hofstede’s 32-item cultural instrument and to indicate
which dimension (power distance, individualism/collectivism,
uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity) each particular
item was intended to reflect. The percentage of subjects who and cast doubt on the reliability of the cultural instrument,
“correctly” classified a particular item was then calculated in especially when used at an individual level of analysis.
order to provide a measure of “face validity” (see Churchill, In order to ascertain whether the low success rates might be
an artifact of the sample, the responses of the MBA students
1979; Schwab, 1980). Subjects were also asked to respond to
were compared to those of the faculty sample. Whereas one
each item (as in a typical questionnaire), thus indicating their
might expect MBA students to have some difficulty in
underlying values. These data were then used to compute the
matching the items to their underlying dimensions, one would
reliabilities of the four dimensions; and was factor analyzed to
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)

expect that faculty members in the behavioral sciences would

determine whether the various items loaded in a manner that
be able to ascertain the underlying dimensions with a
is consistent with Hofstede’s framework, thus providing
reasonable degree of accuracy (i.e. if the items are indeed
evidence as to discriminant and convergent validity. reliable). However, as can be seen in Table I, the faculty
The items were obtained from Culture’s Consequences respondents had an overall success rate of only 43.8 percent,
(Hofstede, 1980, 2001), and were presented in their original compared to 39.7 percent for the MBA student respondents.
form (see Appendix 1, Table AI). The sample (n ¼ 157) was Clearly, these figures illustrate that Hofstede’s instrument
drawn from two different populations. One group of lacks face validity.
respondents consisted of 97 MBA students, all of who had In order to illustrate how the various items were classified/
full-time work experience. Another group consisted of 60 misclassified, Tables II-V group them according to their
faculty members from the behavioral sciences (marketing, intended, underlying dimensions. Table II reveals that the
management, psychology, sociology, and communications). success rate for the individualism/collectivism items ranged
Given that faculty in the behavioral sciences typically are well from a low of 26.1 percent (item A12) to a high of 61.8
trained in construct development their inclusion provides a percent (items A13 and A17), and that many of the items
strong test of the reliability and validity of Hofstede’s were perceived as indicators of masculinity/femininity or
framework. All subjects were given $5 Starbuck’s gift cards uncertainty avoidance. The success rate for the masculinity/
in return for their participation. femininity items was also very low (see Table III), with only
one of the eight items (A7) being correctly identified by a
Face validity majority of respondents. Four of the masculinity/femininity
Subjects performed the classification task after first reading a items (A5, A6, A8, and A11) were perceived most often as
detailed description of Hofstede’s cultural framework. They reflecting individualism/collectivism, and one (A14) was
were then given a questionnaire containing the 32 items, and classified most often as reflecting uncertainty avoidance.
were instructed to indicate which dimension each item was Similarly, Table IV illustrates that only two of the nine
intended to measure. Subjects were allowed to refer to written uncertainty avoidance items (A37 and A43) were correctly
definitions of the four dimensions while performing the classified by a majority of respondents, and that four items
classification task (see Appendix 2, Figure A1). were identified as indicators of uncertainty avoidance by fewer
The percentage of subjects who correctly classified each than 15 percent of the respondents. Table V reveals that most
particular item (i.e. consistent with Hofstede’s framework)
was then calculated[1]. If an item is sufficiently reliable, a Table II Individualism/collectivism classification percentages for each
large percentage of subjects should be able to correctly item (n ¼ 157)
identify the underlying dimension that it reflects. Conversely,
a small percentage (or, “success rate”) would indicate that the Hofstede dimensions
item is lacking in face validity, and might not be reliable. Item I/C UA M/F PD
Based on the success rate for each item an overall “successful
classification rate” was calculated for each of the four A9 49.7 21.0 19.7 9.6
Hofstede dimensions. A12 26.1 33.1 32.5 8.3
Overall, the 32 items were correctly matched by the subjects A13 61.8 14.0 3.8 20.4
to their underlying dimensions only 41.3 percent of the time, A17 61.8 5.7 25.5 7.0
on average (see Table I). The individualism/collectivism items A18 31.2 3.2 63.7 1.9
were correctly classified, on average, 43.1 percent of the time; B52 46.5 20.4 31.2 1.9
the uncertainty avoidance and masculinity/femininity items B53 38.9 8.9 45.2 7.0
were successfully identified 30.4 percent and 26.0 percent of B58 45.9 13.4 36.9 3.8
the time; and the power distance items were correctly B59 26.1 50.3 13.4 10.2
classified by subjects 63.1 percent of the time. Overall, the low Avg % 43.1 18.9 30.2 7.8
success rates indicate that many of the items lack face validity,

341
 A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework Journal of Consumer Marketing
Jeffrey G. Blodgett et al. Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 339 –349

Table III Masculinity/femininity classification percentages for each thus were instructed to respond with their previous employer
item (n ¼ 157) in mind). Each of the faculty respondents were tenured or on
a tenure-track.
Hofstede dimensions In order to further assess reliability Cronbach’s alpha was
Item I/C UA M/F PD computed for each of the four dimensions. Higher levels of
alpha indicate that the various items behave in a consistent
A5 72.0 4.5 18.5 5.1
manner, and reflect the extent to which the items are
A6 41.4 21.7 34.4 2.5
measuring the same, underlying construct (Churchill, 1979;
A7 26.8 7.0 56.1 10.2 Schwab, 1980). Table VI presents these reliabilities.
A8 67.5 9.6 10.8 12.1 Considering that Nunnally (1978) established 70 percent
A11 58.6 1.9 26.8 12.7 reliability as a minimally acceptable standard in the early
A14 10.8 80.3 6.4 2.5 stages of construct development, none of the four cultural
A15 30.6 3.8 38.2 27.4 dimensions appears to be sufficiently reliable. Although
A16 12.1 7.6 16.6 63.7 individualism/collectivism and masculinity/femininity display
Avg % 40.0 17.0 26.0 17.0 moderate levels of reliability (0.666 and 0.651), the
reliabilities for uncertainty avoidance (0.351) and power
distance (0.301) do not approach minimally acceptable
standards.
Table IV Uncertainty avoidance classification percentages for each
item (n ¼ 157)
Factor analyses
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)

Hofstede dimensions In order to further assess the convergent and discriminant

Item I/C UA M/F PD validity of Hofstede’s instrument factor analyses were
A10 27.4 31.8 34.4 6.4 performed. If each of the four dimensions is indeed distinct
A37 5.1 66.2 14.6 14.0
one would expect to find four factors, with similar items
loading together to form a coherent structure (i.e. the
A43 23.6 56.1 14.6 5.7
individualism/collectivism items should load on a common
A58 42.7 12.1 31.8 13.4
factor, the power distance items should load on a second
B9 17.8 7.6 22.9 51.6 factor, the masculinity/femininity items should load on a third
B44 17.2 42.7 10.8 29.3 factor, and the uncertainty avoidance items should load on a
B54 45.9 7.0 29.3 17.8 fourth factor). The factor analyses were generated using
B57 74.5 5.1 7.6 12.7 principle components extraction and quartimax rotation.
B60 15.9 44.6 2.5 36.9 Table VII presents the unconstrained, rotated matrix; which
Avg % 30.0 30.4 18.8 20.9 resulted in 11 factors. The 32 items indiscriminately load
across the factors, with no apparent pattern. Clearly, a
structure similar to the cultural framework does not emerge.
Accordingly, a second factor analysis was conducted, with the
Table V Power distance classification percentages for each item
number of factors constrained to equal four (see Table VIII).
(n ¼ 157)
Although a more coherent structure emerges, most of the
Hofstede dimensions individualism/collectivism and masculinity/ femininity items
Item I/C UA M/F PD load on a single, common factor. Furthermore, the
uncertainty avoidance items load across each of the four
B46 5.1 11.5 1.9 81.5 factors, and the power distance items load across three
A54 25.5 5.1 5.7 63.7 factors. Clearly, a four-factor solution is not supported.
A55 17.2 8.3 6.4 68.2 Finally, given that Hofstede actually found that three factors
B24 17.8 54.1 6.4 21.7 accounted for most of the variance, another analysis was
B55 8.9 8.3 7.0 75.8 conducted, in which the structure was constrained to three
B56 24.2 5.7 2.5 67.5 factors. As can be seen in Table IX, the results fail to validate
Avg % 16.5 15.5 5.0 63.1 the cultural framework. Again, the individualism/collectivism
and masculinity/femininity converge on a common factor, and
the power distance items display no coherent pattern.
of the power distance items were correctly identified by a Although several of the uncertainty avoidance items do
majority of respondents; however, only two were correctly converge on a single factor, others do not load in a consistent
classified by more than 70 percent of the respondents. pattern. Overall, the results indicate that the cultural
Overall, the data reveal that three of the four cultural framework, when applied at the individual unit of analysis,
dimensions do not appear to have a “reasonable” degree of is lacking in both convergent and discriminant validity.
face validity.
Table VI Reliabilities n ¼ 157
Reliabilities Individualism/ Masculinity/ Uncertainty Power
In addition to the classification task subjects also provided a
collectivism femininity avoidance distance
response to each of the 32 items. All of the MBA students
were either working full-time – or had previously done so – No. of items 9 8 9 6
and thus Hoftede’s questionnaire was highly relevant (a few of Cronbach’s Alpha 0.666 0.651 0.351 0.301
the MBA students were working as graduate assistants, and

342
 A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework Journal of Consumer Marketing
Jeffrey G. Blodgett et al. Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 339 –349

Table VII Rotated factor matrix unconstrained

Item Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A9 I/C 0.57
A12 I/C 0.62
A13 I/C 0.50
A17 I/C 0.76
A18 I/C 0.74
B52 I/C 0.57
B53 I/C 2 0.49 20.38
B58 I/C 0.73
B59 I/C 0.56 20.36
A6 M/F 0.81
A7 M/F 20.70
A8 M/F 0.71
A11 M/F 0.39 0.43
A14 M/F 0.53 0.52
A16 M/F 0.74
A5 M/F 0.77
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)

A15 M/F 0.44 20.42 0.49

B46 PD 2 0.56
A54 PD 0.42
A55 PD 0.53
B24 PD 0.77
B55 PD 0.86
B56 PD 20.68
A10 UA 0.53 0.40
A37 UA 0.61 0.36
A43 UA 0.66
A58 UA 0.67
B9 UA 0.86
B44 UA 0.79
B54 UA 0.39 0.48
B57 UA 2 0.40 0.52
B60 UA 20.37
Note: Loadings . 20.35 and , 0.35 not displayed

Discussion This critique is not meant to be overly critical of Hofstede’s

There is no doubt that the concept of culture is legitimate.
The authors commend Hofstede for his pioneering work in
this area, and for bringing the concept of culture to the
forefront of the various behavioral science disciplines. The
issue for marketing and consumer behavior researchers,
however, is how to best capture this construct and its various
dimensions. As this research has demonstrated, measures that
might be appropriate for national level comparisons are not
necessarily valid for use at the consumer level. (Although it is
doubtful that measures that are not valid at an individual level
are somehow more valid when aggregated to form national
indices, this research does not address that particular issue.)
This study presents evidence that Hofstede’s cultural
instrument lacks sufficient construct validity when applied
at an individual level of analysis. The results were consistent.
Overall, a majority of the items were lacking in face validity,
the reliabilities of the four dimensions were low, and the factor
analyses did not result in a coherent structure. These results
help explain why Ng et al. (2007) found little congruency
between Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s (1994) frameworks. It is
clear that additional work is needed in order to develop a
reliable and valid cultural instrument.
framework. Instead, it is hoped that these findings will
eventually lead to a reliable and valid measure that captures
the richness of the various cultural dimensions and can be
deployed at the individual consumer and sub-group levels of
analyses. It is well understood that in order to claim an
association between any two constructs – in terms of
correlation or causation – one must first prove that the
corresponding measures are valid. More specifically, in order
to claim an association between an underlying dimension of
culture and any type of consumer behavior (such as
materialism, attitude toward the ad, family decision making,
or word-of-mouth) one must first demonstrate that the
cultural measure is reliable and valid.
Managerial implications
Given the diversity of the world marketplace, it is essential that
marketing academicians and practitioners have a robust measure
of culture so that our understanding of consumer decision
making can keep pace with a rapidly changing environment. A
measure that truly accounts for differences in the ways in which
individuals from different parts of the world think, feel, and

343
 A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework Journal of Consumer Marketing
Jeffrey G. Blodgett et al. Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 339 –349

Table VIII Rotated factor matrix constrained to four factors Table IX Rotated factor matrix constrained to three factors
Item Type 1 2 3 4 Item Type 1 2 3
A9 I/C 0.59 2 0.36 A9 I/C 0.49 0.47
A12 I/C 0.66 A12 I/C 0.65
A13 I/C 0.50 0.37 A13 I/C 0.58
A17 I/C 0.57 A17 I/C 0.47
A18 I/C 0.50 A18 I/C 0.57
B52 I/C 0.60 B52 I/C 0.46 0.48
B53 I/C B53 I/C 0.40
B58 I/C 0.59 B58 I/C 0.46 0.43
B59 I/C B59 I/C
A6 M/F 0.51 A6 M/F 0.53
A7 M/F A7 M/F 0.48
A8 M/F 0.55 A8 M/F 0.51
A11 M/F 0.51 A11 M/F 0.36 0.37
A14 M/F 0.45 0.51 A14 M/F 0.59
A16 M/F 0.66 A16 M/F 0.61
A5 M/F 0.52 A5 M/F 0.44 20.53
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)

A15 M/F 0.50 2 0.49 A15 M/F 0.54 20.49

B46 PD 2 0.55 B46 PD 0.52
A54 PD 0.45 20.40 A54 PD 0.49
A55 PD A55 PD
B24 PD 0.39 B24 PD
B55 PD B55 PD
B56 PD 20.40 B56 PD 20.39
A10 UA 0.54 A10 UA 0.54 0.37
A37 UA 0.56 A37 UA 20.45
A43 UA 0.73 A43 UA 20.63
A58 UA 0.62 A58 UA 20.54
B9 UA 2 0.45 B9 UA 0.41
B44 UA 20.39 B44 UA
B54 UA 0.50 B54 UA 0.53
B57 UA 0.52 B57 UA
B60 UA 20.57 B60 UA
Note: Loadings . 20.35 and , 0.35 not displayed Note: Loadings . 20.35 and , 0.35 not displayed

behave would be valuable for market segmentation, and for
understanding why consumers from diverse regions and cultures
react differently to various marketing tactics. A valid measure of
culture could help explain, for example, why consumers from
around the world react differently to various advertising formats
and other attempts at persuasion, why “country of origin” affects
the success of new products to a greater extent in some countries
as compared to others, and why consumers in some parts of the
world are more (or less) apt to complain when dissatisfied with a
product or service. It could also help marketers better
understand why family decision making styles vary from one
country to another, why consumption patterns among younger
and older age groups differ across nationalities, why expectations
regarding service quality vary among nations, and why
consumers in some countries are willing to pay higher prices
for eco-friendly products and services, etc. A valid measure of
culture could help international marketers determine when a
global brand strategy is appropriate, as compared to a more
customized and “country by country” approach. Similarly, it
could also help other firms determine which countries to first
enter as they expand their marketing efforts beyond their own
borders. In summary, a reliable and valid measure of culture can
help marketers segment consumers from various countries and
nationalities in a more meaningful manner, and in turn to
develop more effective marketing mixes.
Conclusion
There certainly remains much work to be done to develop a
valid measure of culture. When applied across national
boundaries, the instrument should capture a substantial
portion of both between-cultures variance and within-cultures
variance, and should help explain differences in consumer
behavior across cultural boundaries. It should also be
applicable when comparing diverse sub-groups within a
particular country (e.g., Hispanic Americans vs Asian-
Americans vs African-Americans vs Muslim-Americans).
With that goal in mind, the authors plan on conducting
future studies to assess the reliability and validity of other
cultural measures, such as those by Schwartz (1994), Triandis
(1995), Maznevski and DiStefano (1995), and the GLOBE
instrument developed by House et al. (2004). Although the
development of a robust and valid instrument was beyond the
scope of this study, it is hoped that it is hoped that these
findings will provide a spark that will eventually lead to
successful completion of that objective.

344
 A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework
Jeffrey G. Blodgett et al.
Note
1 In order to compute an overall success rate for each of the four
dimensions each of the 32 items was classified according to
Hofstede (1980, pp. 83-4). Although this process was
straightforward for most items it was somewhat subjective
for several of the individualism/collectivism and power
distance items, all of which loaded on a common factor in
Hofstede’s study. Although Hofstede identified five of these
items as reflecting individualism/ collectivism, and three as
representative of power distance, seven others were not
specified one way or the other. In order to resolve this issue
these seven items were considered to reflect the dimension
most often identified by the subjects. As a result, four were
classified as individualism/ collectivism, and three were
deemed to reflect power distance. It should be noted that this
decision results in a more positive evaluation of face validity.
References
Aaker, J.L. and Maheswaran, D. (1997), “The effect of
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)
cultural orientation on persuasion”, The Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 315-28.
Alden, D.L., Hoyer, W.D. and Chol, L. (1993), “Identifying
global and culture-specific dimensions of humor in
advertising: a multinational analysis”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 64-75.
Bakir, A., Blodgett, J.G., Vitell, S.J. and Rose, G.M. (2000),
“A preliminary investigation of the reliability and validity of
Hofstede’s cross cultural dimensions”, Proceedings for
Academy of Marketing Science, May 24-28, 2000, Montreal.
Blodgett, J.G., Lu, L.C., Rose, G.M. and Vitell, S.J. (2001),
“Ethical sensitivity to stakeholder interests: a cross-cultural
comparison”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 190-202.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Craig, C.S. and Douglas, S.P. (2006), “Beyond national
culture: implications of cultural dynamics for consumer
research”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 322-42.
Gregory, G.D. and Munch, J.M. (1997), “Cultural values in
international advertising: an examination of familial norms
and roles in Mexico”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 99-119.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work Related Values, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing
Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across
Nations, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. and
Gupta, V. (2004), Leadership, Culture, and Organizations:
The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kacen, J.J. and Lee, J.A. (2002), “The influence of culture on
consumer impulsive buying behavior”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-76.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1994), “Individualism and collectivism”, in
Kim, U., Triandis, H., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and
Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory,
Method, and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Laroche, M., Kalamas, M. and Cleveland, M. (2005), “I
versus ‘we’: how individualists and collectivists use
information sources to formulate their service
expectations”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 279-308.
345
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 339 –349
Liu, R.R. and McClure, P. (2001), “Recognizing cross-
cultural differences in consumer complaint behavior and
intentions: an empirical examination”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 54-75.
Mattila, A.S. and Patterson, P.G. (2004), “Service recovery
and fairness perceptions in collectivist and individualist
contexts”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 336-46.
Maznevski, M.L. and DiStefano, J.J. (1995), “Measuring
culture in international management: the cultural
perspectives questionnaire”, The University of Western
Ontario Working Paper Series, The University of Western
Ontario, Ontario.
Ng, S.I., Lee, J.A. and Soutar, G.N. (2007), “Are Hofstede’s
and Schwartz’s value frameworks congruent?”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 164-80.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Piron, F. (2006), “China’s changing culture: rural and urban
consumers’ favorite things”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 327-34.
Roth, M.S. (1995), “The effects of culture and
socioeconomics on the performance of global brand image
strategies”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 163-75.
Schwab, D.P. (1980), “Construct validity in organizational
behavior”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B. (Eds), Research
in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 3-43.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Beyond individualism/collectivism:
new cultural dimensions of values”, in Kim, U., Triandis, H.,
Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds),
Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and
Applications, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 85-119.
Schwartz, S.H. and Ros, M. (1995), “Values in the West: a
theoretical and empirical challenge to the individualism-
collectivism dimension”, World Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 91-122.
Singh, S. (2006), “Cultural differences in, and influences on,
consumers’ propensity to adopt innovations”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 173-91.
Steenkamp, J.E.M. (2001), “The role of national culture in
international marketing research”, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 30-44.
Steeenkamp, J.E.M., ter Hostede, F. and Wedel, M. (1999),
“A cross-national investigation into the individual and
national antecedents of consumer innovativeness”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 55-69.
Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism,
Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Yeniyurt, S. and Townsend, J.D. (2003), “Does culture
explain acceptance of new products in a country? An
empirical investigation”, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 377-96.
Zandpour, F., Campos, V., Catalano, J., Chang, C., Cho, Y.D.,
Hoobyar, R., Jiang, S.F., Lin, M.C., Madrid, S.,
Scheideler, H. and Osborn, S.T. (1994), “Global reach
and local touch: achieving cultural fitness in TV advertising”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 25-38.
Further reading
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi
Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field
Settings, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
 A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework Journal of Consumer Marketing
Jeffrey G. Blodgett et al. Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 339 –349

Appendix 1

Table AI List of items used by Hofstede to measure the cultural dimensions

How important is it to you to . . .

A5 Have challenging work to do – work from which you can get a personal sense of accomplishment?
A6 Live in an area desirable to you and your family?
A7 Have an opportunity for high earnings?
A8 Work with people who cooperate well with one another?
A9 Have training opportunities (to improve your skills or learn new skills)?
A10 Have good fringe benefits?
A11 Get the recognition you deserve when you do a good job?
A12 Have good physical working conditions (good ventilation and lighting, adequate work space, etc.)?
A13 Have considerable freedom to adopt your own approach to the job?
A14 Have the security that you will be able to work for your company as long as you want to?
A15 Have an opportunity for advancement to higher-level jobs?
A16 Have a good working relationship with your manager?
A17 Fully use your skills and abilities on the job?
A18 Have a job which leaves you sufficient time for your personal or family life?
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)

Please respond to the following questions

A37 How often do you feel nervous or tense at work?
A43 How long do you think you will continue working for this company?
A58 Considering everything, how would you rate your overall satisfaction in this company at the present time
A58 Considering everything, how would you rate your overall satisfaction in this company at the present time
B9 If you had a choice of promotion to either a managerial or a specialist position and these jobs were at the same salary level, which would appeal
to you most? (You may already have been promoted in either direction, but just assume you could start again)
B24 All in all, what is your personal feeling about working for a company which is primarily foreign-owned?
B44 How do you feel or think you would feel about working for a manager who is from a country other than your own?
B46 How frequently, in your experience, are employees afraid to express disagreement with their managers?
Please respond to the following statements
B52 A corporation should have a major responsibility for the health and welfare of its employees and their immediate families
B53 Having interesting work to do is just as important to most people as having high earnings
B54 Competition among employees usually does more harm than good
B55 Employees lose respect for a manager who asks them for their advice before he makes a final decision
B56 Employees in industry should participate more in the decisions made by management
B57 Decisions made by individuals are usually of higher quality than decisions made by groups
B58 A corporation should do as much as it can to help solve society’s problems (poverty, discrimination, pollution, etc.)
B59 Staying with one company for a long time is usually the best way to get ahead in business
B60 Company rules should not be broken – even when the employee thinks it is in the company’s best interests
The following descriptions apply to four different types of managers. Please read through these descriptions, and then respond to the next two
questions
Manager 1 Usually makes his/her decisions promptly and communicates them to his/her subordinates clearly and firmly. Expects them to carry out the
decisions loyally and without raising difficulties
Manager 2 Usually makes his/her decisions promptly, but before going ahead, tries to explain them fully his/her subordinates. Gives them reasons for the
decisions and answers whatever questions they may have
Manager 3 Usually consults with his/her subordinates before he/she reaches his/her decisions. Listens to their advice, considers it, and then announces his/
her decision. He/she then expects all to work loyally to implement it whether or not it is in accordance with the advice they gave
Manager 4 Usually calls a meeting of his/her subordinates when there is an important decision to be made. Puts the problem before the group and tries to
obtain consensus. If he/she obtains consensus, he/she accepts this as the decision. If consensus is impossible, he/she usually makes the decision
him/herself
Please respond to the following two questions.
A54 Now for the above types of manager, please mark the one which you would prefer to work under
A55 And, to which one of the above four types of managers would you say your own manager most closely corresponds?

346
 A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework Journal of Consumer Marketing
Jeffrey G. Blodgett et al. Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 339 –349

Appendix 2

Figure A1 Instructions to subjects

Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)

347
 A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework
Jeffrey G. Blodgett et al.
Figure A1
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)
About the authors
Jeffrey G. Blodgett is an Associate Professor of Marketing at
North Carolina A&T State University. In addition to cross-
cultural measurement, his research interests include
consumer complaint behavior and justice. He has published
in journals such as Journal of Retailing, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Journal of Business Research, Journal of
Service Research, Psychology and Marketing, and others. Jeffrey
G. Blodgett is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: jgblodge@ncat.edu
Aysen Bakir is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Illinois
State University. Her research interests include children’s
advertising, gender roles, and cross-cultural consumer behavior.
She has published articles in the Journal of Advertising Research,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, Journal of Marketing Education, and other
journals and proceedings.
Gregory M. Rose is a Professor of Marketing at the University
of Washington, Tacoma. His research interests include
consumer socialization and cross-cultural consumer behavior.
He has published articles in the Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of
Business Research, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Advertising,
348
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 339 –349
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Marketing and other
journals and proceedings.
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.
Consumer market diversity has increased rapidly with
globalization and much of this is attributed to differences
across national cultures.
Culture and marketing
Culture was originally conceptualized as collective but many
researchers pointed out the different layers that make up the
whole. Smaller units of culture have subsequently come under
investigation. The expansion in cross border connections has
in fact served to make any analysis of national culture much
less significant, as such an approach fails to consider any likely
variations on a regional or individual scale.
 A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural framework
Jeffrey G. Blodgett et al.
It is widely acknowledged that cultural differences do
influence consumer behavior and many analysts have turned
to Hofstede’s cultural framework (HCF) to further their
understanding. HCF emerged following research carried out
at IBM when employees around the world were surveyed to
assess their attitude and satisfaction at work. The study
originally adopted a within-culture focus until Hofstede
realized that between-culture analysis would afford greater
edification.
HCF is founded on the premise that people around the
world are shaped by differences in such as attitudes, beliefs,
customs, and moral and ethical standards. Different
traditions, ceremonies and religions exert influence within
societies with the result being a variety of perceptions toward
family, work and personal and social responsibility.
The framework eventually evolved into a 32-item scale
covering four separate categories:
1 Individualism/collectivism. This index reflects the extent to
which people look after themselves as opposed to being
concerned with group welfare and loyalty. Individualistic
societies also value independence and the attainment of
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)
personal goals, while group interests and a respect for
tradition is the norm within a collectivist culture.
Uncertainty avoidance. A need for rules, norms and
consensus versus a greater propensity for risk taking is the
issue here.
2 Masculinity/femininity. Within a masculine society, success,
money and personal achievement are coveted, so people
need to be competitive and show aggression and ambition
to succeed. On the contrary, quality of life takes
precedence in a feminine society. Caring for others,
modesty and a humble attitude are therefore more valued.
3 Power distance. This relates to the extent to which a society
accepts unequal power distribution. Obedience towards
superiors and recognized behavioral codes are the norm
when levels are perceived as high. Individuals in situations
of low levels of power distance are less likely to feel
inhibited by any assumed or tangible differences in rank,
authority or position.
HCF has underpinned much of the previous research into
cultural marketing and consumer behavior and has been
applied within a wide range of marketing contexts. These have
included studies of complaint behavior, consumer
innovativeness, impulsive buying behavior, advertising and
ethical decision making to name but a few. In view of its
widespread usage, Blodgett et al. are surprised that HCF has
never been subjected to any rigorous examination of its
validity. Previous concerns have been raised, however, such as
when use of a different measure based on Hofstede’s
framework revealed several incompatibilities.
Framework analysis
Such concerns have prompted the authors to conduct an
investigation into HCF and to measure its suitability for
application to smaller units of analysis. Study participants
were asked to review the 32 items of the framework and then
indicate which of the four dimensions each belongs in. The
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
349
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2008 · 339 –349
premise here is that a high number of respondents will classify
an item correctly if it is sufficiently reliable. The 157
participants included 97 MBA students and 60 faculty
members from various behavioral science departments.
The results showed that the 32 items were correctly
matched just 41.3 percent of the time. Only those within the
power distance categories came close to an acceptable level,
while the items within the other three indices recorded
significantly lower scores. This indicated that many of the
items lack face validity and puts the reliability of the measure
into serious doubt. Faculty members chose the correct
classification 43.8 percent of the time compared to a 39.7
percent success rate of the MBA students. It was presumed
that the faculty members in particular would be sound judges
of the reliability and validity of HCF because of their
familiarity with construct development. Blodgett et al. believe
that the low percentage of correct matches among this group
is therefore especially revealing.
Factor analyses with 11, four and then three factors were
subsequently carried out and all failed to validate the cultural
instrument. Random loading of the items with no evident
pattern occurred across the factors.
Conclusion
The research indicates that alternative tools may be needed if
marketers are able to develop a measure to effectively analyze
culture at sub-group and individual consumer level. Any links
between underlying cultural dimensions and different
consumer behaviors like, for instance, materialism, word-of-
mouth and family decision-making will only be proved valid if
accurate instruments are available.
Developing a reliable measure to indicate the differences in
the ways people around the globe think, feel and behave
would be a huge asset for marketers. Improved segmentation
would become likelier with a more profound understanding of
why people react differently to advertising formats and
marketing messages. In addition, greater awareness of
variations within issues such as family decision-making,
consumption patterns between different age groups and
attitudes towards green products is another feasible outcome.
Armed with such information, marketers will also be:
. better positioned to decide whether to adopt a global
brand strategy or a customized approach that is more
country-specific;
.
able to decide which countries to target first when
expanding beyond the host nation;
.
more aware of both within and between cultural
disparities; and
. able to compare diverse sub-groups within a particular
nation.
The authors are planning further studies to assess the
reliability and validity of other cultural measures as part of the
effort to develop an accurate measure.
(A précis of the article “A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural
framework”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Lei Mee Thien, Ramayah Thurasamy, Nordin Abd Razak. 2014. Specifying and assessing a formative measure for Hofstede’s
cultural values: a Malaysian study. Quality & Quantity 48, 3327-3342. [CrossRef]
2. Shin-Yuan Hung, Tsan-Ching Kang, David Yen, Albert Huang, Kuanchin Chen. 2014. A Cross-Cultural Analysis of
Communication Tools and Communication Outcomes. Journal of Global Information Management 20:10.4018/JGIM.20120701,
55-83. [CrossRef]
3. Arpita Joardar, Sibin Wu, Shouming Chen. 2014. The impact of national culture and type of entrepreneurs on outsourcing.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 10, 643-659. [CrossRef]
4. Lukas Parker, Torgeir Aleti Watne, Linda Brennan, Hue Trong Duong, Dang Nguyen. 2014. Self expression versus the
environment: attitudes in conflict. Young Consumers 15:2, 138-152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Tahmid Nayeem. 2014. Revised CSI and Australian consumers: incorporating ‘innovation’ and ‘automobile purchases’. The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 24, 278-293. [CrossRef]
6. Tomáš Kincl, Pavel Štrach. 2013. Cultural differences in online beer marketing: findings from automated attention analysis.
Behaviour & Information Technology 32, 644-654. [CrossRef]
7. Vanessa Ann Claus, Jamie Callahan, Judy R. Sandlin. 2013. Culture and leadership: women in nonprofit and for-profit leadership
positions within the European Union. Human Resource Development International 16, 330-345. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 12:40 06 January 2015 (PT)

8. Arpita Khare. 2013. Culture, small retail stores, and Indian consumer preferences: A moderating role of demographics. The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 23, 87-109. [CrossRef]
9. Heejin Lim, Jee-Sun Park. 2013. The Effects of National Culture and Cosmopolitanism on Consumers’ Adoption of Innovation:
A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 25, 16-28. [CrossRef]
10. Santiago Forgas-Coll, Ramon Palau-Saumell, Javier Sánchez-García, Luís J. Callarisa-Fiol. 2012. Urban destination loyalty drivers
and cross-national moderator effects: The case of Barcelona. Tourism Management 33, 1309-1320. [CrossRef]
11. Dale Hample, Ioana A. Cionea. 2012. Serial arguments in inter-ethnic relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations
36, 430-445. [CrossRef]
12. Arpita Khare. 2012. Influence of Culture on Indian Consumers’ Preference to Shop at Small Retail Stores. Journal of Global
Marketing 25, 100-111. [CrossRef]
13. Pedro Lorca, Javier De Andrées, Ana B. Martínez. 2012. Size and culture as determinants of the web policy of listed firms: The
case of web accessibility in Western European countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
63:10.1002/asi.v63.2, 392-405. [CrossRef]
14. M.M. Santos Natário, L.M. Canada Abreu Nunes, A.C. Oliveira Gonçalves. 2012. Identify cultural patterns in the cities of
Guarda and Covilhã. Tékhne 10, 27-38. [CrossRef]
15. Antónia Correia, Metin Kozak, João Ferradeira. 2011. Impact of culture on tourist decision-making styles. International Journal
of Tourism Research 13, 433-446. [CrossRef]
16. Pedro Lorca, Javier de Andrés. 2011. Performance and Management Independence in the ERP Implementations in Spain: A
Dynamic View. Information Systems Management 28, 147-164. [CrossRef]
17. Antónia Correia, Metin Kozak, João FerradeiraCross-Cultural Heterogeneity in Tourist Decision Making 39-61. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
18. Piyush Sharma. 2010. Measuring personal cultural orientations: scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 38, 787-806. [CrossRef]