The many dimensions of culture Acadiemic Commoniory by Hovay C. Triana l first met Geert Hofstede im 1973, at the Congress of the Inferoational Awwociation ol Appliod Poy chology in Liege, Belgium. He mentioned to group ol delegates at the Congress that be had a Jorge data eet that he was going to cnalyse and offered to take us to Brussels to lovk at il. We were quite Impresoed. A lew years Iajer, Sage Publications asked me 1 roviow tho manuserlpt that became the 1980 Issel. Trecommended publication most enthusiastically. I found the individualism-collectiviam dimension Particularly Welptul, becouse at organized many of the observations of resacich I had done in the 18608 in traditional Greece and im Mlinoss.| For instance, | obserred that Grooks behaved much more differontiy when thoy inteacted with an in- group (eg., the lamily) than with on oulgroup fe.g., strangers) than did the samples from IIlinaig, The Greeks behovad much more under the influence of norms (what should | do?) than of attitudes (what would | like to do?) than wes true lor Americans. They defined who thay weze in more social terms. Mony social Bahaviors were associated >with inti- macy in Greece to o greater extent thon was the cane in fllinoit. For example, upon mseting 6 “new frignd.” the Crooks sight uok: "How much de you earn per month?" which was not a likely question in Mhinots, Ay the time T reviewed the Hodstede book, | was, also studying Hispanics in tha USA, Many of the findings could be understood much better if the individualism-collectivism dimension was taken inte aecount, Por stample, we found whan we pee sented several hundred situations to our sanples of Hispanics and non-Hispanics and asked (hem to rate the probability of differant baheviors in those situotions thal the onswere fell into a particular patter. Whan the behavier was positive, the His panic average rating of the probability was higher thon the rating of the non-Hisponice, but when the Debuvior was negative, the Hispanic eveiuge rat- ing of the probability wos lower than the rating af the non-Hispanice Wo called this the simpotia scrip! becouse if is chorasterintic of people who want to have good relationships with others, ie, ‘want others io see them as “simpatico, ‘The other dimensions of Hofstede’s 1980 book Power Distonce, Uncertainty Aveidance, and Mes- cullnity-Pemininily—ore also interesting. In what follows I will first make some general comments about Hatstedo's work, then will diseuse the ind vidualism-collactiviem dimension ond sirass tts impotence in the recent literature in psychology and orgenizational studies, and finally | wi an the other dimensions The Importance of Hotelede’s Work When | started working as a psychologist, in the mid-1950s, the etudy of culture was of marginal significance. Peychologiste iavored cross-cultural studies only os ¢ mene of confirming that (heir findings were universal and eternal. By contrast, 1 felt that culture was @ cantsal topic for psychology oomuse, [ike Matstece. Tem muttbeultuvsl aid muil- liinguul and | reacted to many ol the “important” findings of social paychology by saying to myselt: “This would not take sense in X culture.” Most poychologists in the 1850-80 period held the view that “cultura! differences are for anthropologists to work on” While there were some psychologists who peid serisus cHantion to culture, such es Klineborg whose text on social psychology in- chided mach cultural material, ond some wha col loborated with anthropologists, like Jarry Bruner ond Bill Lambert ond Wally Latbert, the majority view was that “culture is none of our business, The minority view held, by contrast, that culture i so persasive that all paychology should be a cul tural prychology jure “Inside” the Person 1 Holutede book incrensed the influence of the minority. But culture was still thought of aw “out there” and thus of little importance fer psyeholocare Thdomelts Ba gists A maja: turning point oceurrod when cultura Blarted ta be conceived of os “insice” the person. This view argues that all psychological proceasos have a cultura! component. Thie perspective wos common in the Seviet Union, among the lollowers of Vygotsky, Lutic, and Leontiev, and it entered psychology when Michael Cole? who had studied thare, insisted that « “cultural psychology” should be added fo the “crose-cultural paychology.” But ‘Cole was nat “moinstream.” The chenge occurred wheo well-established mcinstream psychologists like Hazel Markus end Dick Niahett'ed the Univer y of Michigem became converted. The conver: gion occurred when thelr students, such as Kitayama omd Peng, convinced them that what was tue in Michigan was not true in Japan oF Ching. When these mainstream psychologists weal to the For East, they became fascinated and converted. The Turning Point Lthink that in the field of psychology a etitical turning peint occurred with the publication of the Markus & Kitgyama® peview, which essentially showed that (here are major cultural differences in cagnition, emotion, and motivation. Psychologists suddenly realized that what was considered uni- versal in paychalogy is true only in the West, e.g., in individualist cultures: it is not valid everywhere. OH course this work required antecedents, and Hat- stede, ox well as Triandis,) was among the ante- cedents needed te make that argument. In any case, the Markus and Kitayemea poper shilted the fisid. Instead of culture being something at the margin ef paychelogy, It became a vitel topic, Be- twoon L984 and 2000 the number of papore in the major prychology journals that were concerned with culture increased weventold Many main- stream psychological findings ware ne longer eter nal but depended on time and place, Psychologists suddenly realized that what was considered universal in psychology is true only in the West. e.g.. in individualist cultures; It is not valid everywhere. An interesting indicntion of the change in the “culture of paychelegy’ was the story ol the writing of the chapter on culture for the Handbook of In dustrial and Orgeniaational Psychology {Dunavetle Hough}, Dunnette arked me ta write it in 1885, | wiete the first draft, but the volume that was io include it was delayed boccuse the other authors ware latte in delivering their chapters. A couple cl youre Iatar, | was arkod te update the culture charp- Jar, which did, Again the others were Lote. and a couple af years later Dunnette asked me lo update Wogan, which I did. By (992 the field had changed so much thal Dunnett asked me lo edit a whole interncticnal volume (() for the Handbook." Hoi: Stede’s work was aelesenced almost 70 times in that volume. The Cultural and Individual Levels of Analysis An impariant contribution of Hofstede's work was the empharit on the distinction botween the cul tural and individual levels of analyeis. Hla work was ot the cultural level, and at thot level individ ualism and collectivism are an opposite pater, But when serious work at the individuel level of anal ysis was undortoken, Individualism was split into several facets {such as Distonca from Ingroups, Hedonism, and Competition), and Collectivism ‘was split into such factors os Fomily Integrity and Sociability, These actors were no longer on oppo- site poles but could be cotrelated, ao that a peracn could be high in bath collectivist ond individualist tendencies. For example, one atudy has shown that people who wore raised ino callectivist culture god then lived in an individualist culture for ee ‘ral years were high in beth collectivism and in- dividualism.” Other studies suggested thar people who were high on both individualism and collec- tivism were better adjusted and could deal with aciversities more successfully. 11 is almost Bike the argument thot one should invest in o diversified portlalio! The Detractars Holstede hae had his detractors. Scholars come in at least two varieties: Those who are craative ond those who aro critical, Hoisieds Is creative and, while be tries to be methedologiecily sophinti- cated, there ore places where he can be criticized, The eritice'! ae usually not crective, and they do inflate themselves by disparaging others. My reac- lion te MeSweaney's paper wos that he made some vrolid points but “the periect is the enemy of the dood.” ‘Taso no point in rehashing the arguments of the erities, [ think they are summarized by the previous quote. In shork Helstede’s work has becume the stan- dard against which new work on cultural differ: ences is validated, Almos! erery publicathun UralAcodamy of Menogemanr E. Febeusry deals with cultural differences and includes many cultures is likely to rfsranee Holstede, Individualism ond Collectivism: The Most Important Dimension [n 1980 started studying the individualiam-collec tivise dimasaion in greater dete, Over the years thie dimention har become the most important in studying cultural differences, though the other four Holslede dimensions also deserve attention. In poper I wrote on the occasion of the publi cation of the seeond edition of Hotstede's book, 1 argued that there are scores of dimensions of cul- tural wariction, Some dimensions are “primary” and directly linked to variations in ecology. Other dimensions are “secondary” having evolved irom the primary dimensions, he way homo sapiens has evolved tram boma babilis. Hofstede has iden- Wied many of the primary dimensions. The Research In the course nf the inet 25 years, memy people have worked on the individuclism-collectivism dima sian. and some of the findings are worth weeording First, the perceptions and behavior of people in collectivist cultures aze different from the percep: thems and behavier of pewple in individualist cul- tures.!* Among the most important choracteristics of people in collectivist cultunas relative fo those in individualist cullures is the emphasis on context more than on content. For instance, in communica tien they pay more cttention to how eemething is scid [tone of voice, gestures) than to what i acid. This con leud to catasizophic reeults, e+ happened in Geneva in 191. Secretary of State Jomes Beker told the Iraqis "We will attack you if you do nat get out of Kuwait,” and they understood that the Amer- icans would not uthack, becouse Baker was culm and did not soom to bo angry! What a mistake! The perceptions and behavior of people dn collectivist culiures cre different from the perceptions and behavior of peaple in individualist cultures. In addition, collectivists see people as relatively mutable and the environment ag relatively immu. table, individualiats ses individuals as stable en tities, no motter what the environment. Collectiv. ists see behavior as due t external actor, such ne norms and roles, more then due te internal fac- tore, such as attitudes ond personality, Further mare, they seo the self as interdependent with in- gioupe. Bul the sel change depending on the ingroup ane is with, [n individualist cultures the eel! is stable, In collectivist cultures people give priority to ingroup goals rather than to personal goals. They pay more allentioa fe norms than to attitudes, They aoe interpersonal felauenships as more steble than do people in individualist cultures." There is now also considerable information about cultural dillaronces in thought patterns."4 As we studied individualism and collectivism in differant cultures, we realized that within culture there are individuals who are idiocentric (think, tecL and behave hike poople im individwatist cul- tures) of well of individuals wha are aliocentric (ike people in collectivist cultures), Collectiviat cultures have somewhera between 30 cnd 10 per tent allocentries; individualist cultures have somewhere between zero cad JS per cent allocen- tris. Individuolist cultures have somewhere be- tween 35 and 100 per cent idiocentrics, while col- lectiviat cultures have somewhere between zero ond 35 per cent idiccentricw. Idiocentrice in collec- ist cultures feel dominated bg the culture ond wont lo escape it. The democracy movement in Tian on Men Square in Ching ts an example. Allo- cantrice in individuclist culturer: teal the meed to join groups—assorictions. unions, social move. ments, a kibbute, ¢ commune. Idiocentrics ware found to be high in expressive nees, dominance. initiation of action, aggressi ness, logical arguments, regulation of flow of com- munication, eye contest, tendad to fintsh the task. and had strong opinions. Allocentrice were high on accommodating and avaidance of argument. ond thay shilled their opinions more easily than did idiocentrics. Tendencies toward idiocontrism or allocentrism ore inthienced by many factors. Idiocentrisem in- cregaes with aifluence, when the porson bas a leadership role, much education, has done much international travel, and has been socially mobile, In aidition, 11 is more likely if the person Ines mi- grated to ¢ culture other than the culture ot up- bringing ond has been socialized in a bilcteral family (where both the mother's and father's rela- tives were influential). Furthermore, idiocentrinm Inctedees when the person bas been greatly ox- posed to the Western moss medic or has heen aeculturated der years toa Wester cultura.te Allocentrisin is more likely if the person has been financially dependent on some ingroup, is of Jow social class. koe hed limited education, has done little travel, has been socialized in « unilat-Trina a eral family (e.g, whete only the father's family OM are presenti, ta traditionally religious, and has bean aeculturated to a collectivist cultun Resaarch showed that allocentrics in collectivist situations are supecially cooperative, but kdocen- rice cre no!, and no one is very couperative in individualistic situations. ° Thus tho kind of situa: tion in which one is interacting with another por san must clio be considered, ‘Noting the number of topics that have been found to be relevant to individualism ond collec- Hivisun, we can see the importance of this dimen sion. Untartungicly. however. mout of the research was done in Eost Asia and North America, and we are net yet sure thet the findings thet will be aam- matized bolow also apply te othor collectivist and individualist cultures. Hofstede identified Power Distance as an impor- tant dimonsion of cultural wusiation. This dimea- sion interacts with individualism and collectivism in interesting ways, resulting In difiorent kinds of individualism and collectivism." For example, wa can consider horizontal and vertica! varieties of iadiviductliem and collectivism. Horizontal individ- ualism (HP) is found most commonly in Scandina- via, where people want to de their awn thing but do not want to “stick out.” Vertical individualism {VI} is more common in the US, especially in competi- live situations, where people want to be “the bast” cand lo be noticed by ethers. Americans often want to be on television and to br mentioned in the nawspapers (sao the crowds in frant of NEC in the morning, woving at their relatives), Horizontal col- Jectiviem (HC) ie typical of the Iarcell kibbutz. Ver- eal collectivism (VC) is lownd in traditional cul- tures such as rural Chine or Indic ‘A fost has been developed that cssesses what per cent of the fime, in different siluations, people use one of these four pattems, For example. in study” of Danish and American students. the Dan- ish sample used the Hi pattern 49 per cent of the tine, across situotions; the American sample used it 44 per cant af the lime, The Danish saunple used HC 35 per cent of the timo, while tho American somple used it 28 per cant of the time, The Danes used V16 percent of the time and the Americans 22 per cent of the time. The Bangs used VC 4 per cent cf the time end the Americans 6 per cent of the time. In these studies a difference a! & per cent is statistically highly signilicant. Thus, we see rather Important differences between the two kinds ol individualist societies. In callectiviat cultures stud- ins have shown higher levels of VC (ol the order-of 15 per cent) than are shown above. Implicctions for Working in Another Culture: When teaching people to work In another culture, itis helpful to mention to them some of the findings sullined above, The individualicm-cotlectiviem framework becomes a genetal way of thinking abou: cultural differences and focilitates learning about the other culture Jn individualist cultures, studies found greater use of individualist human resource practices, For example, poople wore culucted on the bagie of in- dividual attributes, while in collectivist cultures: they were selected oo the basis of group member ainips. Other things being equal, there is moro training in colléctivist that in individualist eul- tures becouse employees are more leyol to the organization and high in organizction commit: ment, uo that they are less likely to leave the at- gonization. Paternalism is a more common leader- ship style in cullectivist than in individwalist cultures. In fact, the boss is much more involved in the personal lide ef employees, knows much more bout them, and doss more helpful things on their behall in collectivis! than in individualist cultures For example, a bean might find a spouse for am employee, might send congratulations when the employee's child graduates tram high school, or send condolences when a member af the employ- ee's family dies. Managers in collectivis! cultures are not as con comed with performance ae managers in Ladivid- ballet cultures are, but they are more concerned with interporsonal relationships thon managers in individualist cultures ave (Ag countries become more atiluent, their popu- lations became more individualist, However, this change requires several generations, We do not naw how long i! takes {or a complete switeh fram collectiviam to individualism, but even in individ: ualiat cultures we find collectiviet elements (see above). As countries become more cifluent, the populations become more individualist. However, this change requires several generations. With the recent concern about deception in or ganizations around the world (Enron, etc), it is interesting to note thet the individualism-collecti ism dimension has some relevanoe, Triandis 4 cit! found thot people in vertical colllectiviae cul tures cra likely to use deception if it helps their ingroup; however, people who are vertical idiocen- tries are also likely to wae deception. In this cone,Ed Acodiacay of Manages! Exnculire compotttivancss and tha need to be “tha beat” tLe, have the moat impressive organization) seem to be the factors that increase the use of deception. In sum, the individuolism-rollectivism dimen- sion has generated a great deal of research. some of which is summanzed abeve. The Power Dis- tance dimension was closely linked with it in Hol- atedo's study and wan here presented aa resulting in horizontal and vertical kinds of individualism and collectivism. Uncertainty Avoidance: Tight and Loose Cultures ‘The Uncertainty Avoidance dimension of Hofstede ‘has also stimulated some corresponding research, There are major cultural differences among eul- tures in the extent to which they aze tight or loose. In tight cultures there are mony rules, norms, and standards for correct behavior. For example, there are strict rules about how to smile or bow. In loose: cultures there are few rules, norms, or standords, Furthermore, when people do not follow a rule, when thay break o norm or ignore a standard, tight cultures they are likely to be criticized, pun- ished, or even Killed, In loose cultures people in ‘that eilwation are likely loway; "It does not matter,” Tightness requires agreement about norms. This ‘is more likely when the culture je isolated. so that itis not influenced by other cultures, Furthermore, cultural homogensity is cbviously nesded for a culture to be tight Finally, in cultures: with high population density, tightness ix particularly tunc- tional, since it helps regulate behavior co that peo ple do the right thing of the sight time ond ce thus interact smoothly and with little interpersonal con In cultures with high population density. tightness is particularly functional, since it helps regulate behavior so that people do the right thing at the right time ond can thus interact smoothiy and with little interpersonal conflict, Japan isa tight culture; it wae even tighter in the 1#® caphsy than if t& now. Feoplé.in Jopan aie olton aitaid (hat they will act inappropriately, thet they will be criticized. Getting drunk In Jopan is particularly helptul bocause it isan occasion when one can relax and breck all norms, and people excuse the inappropriate behaviors. Japanese teenagers who spend some years in the US, which iso relatively loves culture, tind it very ditticult to return to fapan, because they are Febroacy criticized for trivia] bebewlors auch as heving too much tan |there is more sunshine in the US than im Japan} ot having the *wrong" hairdo, One mojor problem in Japanese high schools is that young people gang up on one follow student who hos deviated from “proper behavior.” such es using am upper-class accent when most fallow students use a differant accent ‘The Taliban in Alghonieton woe one of the most extreme cases of a tight society. They executed peopls right and left for “otfente” euch cx listen- ing to music! Thailand ig ¢ loose culture, When people do not do what thoy are supposed to do, other people may just smile and let i qo Thailand is not ot all igoluted, since if is sandwiched between the major cultures of China ond India. People hove ditterent points of view about “conect™ behavior. go there is much tolerance when others do nat behave “eppro- priataly.” The US is in between, However. the US in the 190e wee much tighter than it ic now. One clue of tightness i2 the extent to which people wear more or less the same type of clothing. In the 1980s, Jor insiance, going io 9 party required coat and tis, Now one cam gain almos! anything, except a berthi- ing suit! Organizations alsa differ in how tight they are. Some require coat and tis, and others allow their employees to wear whateva: they like. Hotstede’s Uncertainty Avnidonce in related to lightnees, In cultures high in Uncertainty Aveid- ance, people wont to have structure, to know pre cisely how they ure supposed to behave and what is going to happen next. Predictability of evente ie highly valued. There ie rezearch on tightooss. For example. across «large mumber of societies, there isc cor rolation botwoen tightness and collectivism. One study found more agreement about the meaning of concepts in Japan than in the USA. Gelfond at ihe University of Marylond is at present summarizing dota fom 33 cultures tho! meosure tightness and its societal correlates, ‘Other Dimensions of Cultural Variation A major dimension of cultural variation is cultural complexity. It contrasts hunters and gatherers with, information societies. Howover. becouse organiza: tional peychologisis decl mostly with industriel societies, this dimension is not ralevant. Nevertitve- less one con mention that in combination with lightnesslooseness it seems to be related to col- lectivian and individuealinm. Callectivist euttures are both tight ond simple; individualist culturee2004 Teiandis so ‘are both loose and complex. Research by Carpen- tor has supported this point, The masculinity4fomininity dimension has re ceived loss attention in the literature than the other dimensions, Masculinity {a correlated with domestic political violence and other phenomena. Heistede summarized several studies that in- eluded this dimension in his books, especially in the second edition of Culture's Consequences.” ‘This book summarizes recent work regarding each of the Hofstede dimensions. It includes almost 900 roforonces to recent publications that have contrib- uted something to our understanding of these di- ‘The Influence of Hofstede’s Dimensions ‘Thus each of the important dimensions of cultural variation has bean uncovered by Holstede. The dimensions he identified are relevant to how peo- ple function in industrial societies, We can lock at the way these dimensions influence psychological processes and organizational behaviors In many cultures, The dimensions have generated a tre- mendous amount of research and have been highly influentia! in all the social sciences, Endnotes “Tiandia. H.C. 1872, The analysis of subjective culture Now ‘York Wiley. ‘THandia, H.C. ot al. 1984. Simpatia oe o cultural script of Hispanics. Journal of Perecnality ond Social Prychalagy, 47: 1363-1375. *Cole, M. 1998. Cultural paychology: A Goce ond fsture dis: ‘pling, Cambridge, MA: Horverd Press, "Markus, H, & Kitayarea, & 1901, Culture and salt: implica: toss for cogaitian. emotion, and motivation. Prycbological Rs- low, Hi 224-£9. "Nisbett, R, 2002, The geography af thought. New York: Free Proaa. "Marius & Kitayama. "Triandia, H.C. 1908. Self and social behavior in dilfaring ‘cultural conteats, Paychological view, 96: 508-520, "Hong, Y-y. 2001, Biculturalimn. Lecture given ct the Univer. sity of Illinais Psychology Department, April *Triandia, H.C. Dunnetie, M. & Hough, L (eds) 1984. Hand: book of industria! and organizational paychology (second edi- ton, Vol. 4) Pale Alte. CA: Conmulting Peychologiets Proes. “Yemada, A, & Singelis T. 1995. Bicultwalism and selt- consirual, Internationa! Jouraat of Intercultural Relations, 2% 7-708, " MeSereenay. H, 2002, Holsteda's modal of national cultural ditlereaces Gad (heir compequacices: A triumph of faith—a kail- wre of anolysis, Humon Relations, S& 69-118 *Triaadia, H. C. 2002, Dimensions of culture beyond Holst ede, In Vinkea, H., Sosters, J. & Ester, P. feds.) Comparing culturee: Dimensions of culture in o comparstive perspective Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Publishers, "Trimadia, H. C. 1995. individualiam aad collectivism. Bou! dat, CO: Westview Pros. “Triendia, HL C., & Sab, EM 2002 Cultura! influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 135-160. " Ninbett, "Trimndis. C., & Trelimow. D. 2001. Cross-national preva ence of collectiviens. x C. Sedikides & M.B, Brewer fads), Indtividwal rel. relational well collective sell (pp. 299-276). Phil- axdeipbic: Prycholouy Prows. " Did. “Chatman, |. A, & Bersede. $.G. 1808. Persosality, exgani ational culture, and cooperation: Evidence trom a business simalation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 422449. "Triads, 1995. “Malan, M.A. & Shavitt, 8. 202 Horizontal and vertical todividuallem and ochlerement ralvos: A multimethod exam nation of Denmark and the United Sicles, journal of Cros- (Cutruzad Papehology. 32: 428-486. © Trioadia. H.C., at al. 2001. Cultura, personality and decep.- lon: A multilevel epproach. Internationa! Jourpal of Cras Cultural Management, 1: 73-90. = Triadia, Dunnett, & Hough. Carpantar, S. 2001. Eltects of cultural tightness and collec- (Gviam oo sellconcept and cousal oltributicas. Cross-Cultural Research, 34: 38-56 ™ Chan. D. KS, of cl. 1996, Tightnons-loosscone revisited: ‘Some preliminary cnalyses in Jopan and the United States. Ioternctional Journal of Psychology, SI: 1-12, ““Trigadia. Dunnatte, & Hough, ™ Carpantar. F Hofstede, G. 2001, Culture’s consequences, sscond edition. Thousand aks, CA: Sage. Harry ©. Triandla ia professor ‘emeritus at the University of D> £ ‘ond citations for distinguished