Cultural Traits

Article
Do National Cultural Traits Affect Comparative
Advantage in Cultural Goods?
Zhaobin Fan 1,*, Shujuan Huang 1 and W. Robert J. Alexander 2
1 International Business School, Jinan University, Zhuhai 519070, China; huangshujuan@stu2016.jnu.edu.cn
2 School of Business, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore 4558, Australia; Ralexand@usc.edu.au
* Correspondence: tfanzb@jnu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86‐756‐8506660
Received: 30 May 2017; Accepted: 26 June 2017; Published: 1 July 2017
Abstract: Trade in cultural goods is making an increasingly significant contribution to international
trade, but its flows are very uneven across regions, which has raised concerns over cultural
homogenization. This paper considers various aspects of national culture as possible explanations
for comparative advantage in cultural goods. Using data from 98 countries over the period 2004 to
2014, and employing Hofstede’s multidimensional approach to culture, we test the relationship
between the dimensions of national culture and comparative advantage in cultural goods. We find
that the cultural dimensions of individualism, masculinity, long‐term orientation, and indulgence
are positively associated, whereas the cultural dimensions of power distance and uncertainty
avoidance are negatively associated with comparative advantage in cultural goods.
Keywords: national culture; comparative advantage; cultural goods

1. Introduction
With rapid globalization, the product scope of international trade has been expanding. In the
past decade, cultural goods have become a growing source of international trade, emerging as an
enabler and contributor to the sustainable development of the world economy. In 2013, the value of
global exports in cultural goods reached USD212.8 billion, almost doubling from 2004 and
accounting for 1.22% of all exports of goods [1]. During the Global Financial Crisis, trade in goods
dropped significantly, but trade in cultural goods was less affected. In 2009, overall trade in goods
decreased by 22.4% in value, but cultural exports declined by only 13.5% [1]. Both total trade in
goods and in cultural goods started to recover in 2010.
Cultural goods are goods which carry symbolic, aesthetic, artistic or cultural value [1]. As the
world market for cultural goods has grown, the question of conflicts between cultural diversity and
trade in cultural goods, also known as the ‘culture and trade quandry’, has been of increasing
concern, due to the uneven flow of cultural goods. If cultural trade is dominated by a specific region
or nation, then cultural diversity may be threatened by global cultural homogenization.
Table 1 shows the distribution of world exports and imports of goods by region in 2013, broken
down by trade in cultural goods and total goods. Naturally, the larger regions dominate world
cultural trade, with North America and Europe making up close to half of world exports and over
60% of world imports, while the Caribbean, at the other extreme, accounts for only a fraction of one
percent of both exports and imports in cultural goods. The existence of imbalances in the trade of
cultural goods is clear when we consider the ratio of cultural good exports (or imports) to the
exports (or imports) of all goods. A ratio over 1 indicates that a region is more important in terms of
cultural exports (or imports) while a ratio less than 1 indicates that a region is less significant in
terms of cultural trade.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1153; doi:10.3390/su9071153 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1153 2 of 17
Table 1. World trade in cultural/all goods (2013) by region.
Exports (% World) Imports (% World)
Region Cultural All Ratio (Cultural Cultural All Ratio (Cultural
Goods Goods to All) Goods Goods to All)
North America and
49.1 48.7 1.008 61.7 50.1 1.232
Europe
South and East Asia 45.5 31.2 1.458 26.1 33.2 0.786
Latin America 1.2 6.1 0.197 3.4 5.9 0.576
Central Asia and
2.7 5.3 0.509 2.7 4.6 0.587
Eastern Europe
Arab States 0.8 5.3 0.151 3.0 2.8 1.071
Pacific 0.5 1.7 0.294 2.0 1.6 1.25
Sub‐Saharan Africa 0.3 1.6 0.188 0.9 1.7 0.529
Caribbean 0.02 0.02 1 0.1 0.1 1
Source: [1].
It is striking that, for exports, the ratio is 1 for the Caribbean and close to 1 for North America
and Europe. South and East Asia is the only region that exports a disproportionately high share of
cultural goods. For the remaining regions, the ratio for exports is low, suggesting that the cultures of
these regions may exert little influence on the rest of the world. In South and East Asia, Latin
America, Central Asia and Eastern Europe, and Sub‐Saharan Africa, the ratio with respect to imports
is also below 1, suggesting that they are not subject to a lot of cultural influence from outside their
regions. The Arab States and the Caribbean, with ratios close to 1, are not subject to a
disproportionate inflow of cultural goods. North America and Europe, and the Pacific, stand out as
regions in which their world shares of imports of cultural goods exceed their world shares of trade in
total goods.
Although Table 1 does illustrate, in broad terms, the existence of imbalances in the flows of
cultural goods, it would be necessary to look at flows at the country level to uncover more detail
about the precise nature of the imbalances. Also, it is clear that over time (and particularly recently),
there have been considerable shifts in trade in cultural goods, and this can only be addressed by
looking at the country‐level data over a number of years. For example, prior to 2010, the USA
dominated world exports of cultural goods, but has since been overtaken by China which, by 2013,
exported double the value of the cultural goods exports of the USA [1]. In the empirical work below,
we therefore employ country‐level panel data over the decade to 2014.
In the face of these imbalances in the flows of cultural goods, policy makers worldwide have
expressed concern over possible conflict between the maintenance of cultural diversity and heritage
and the growing trade in cultural goods. In 2001, UNESCO adopted the Universal Declaration on
Cultural Diversity. The Declaration, on the one hand, affirms the importance of cultural diversity,
which is recognized as one of the pillars of sustainable development (not simply in terms of
economic growth, but also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral,
and spiritual existence, while, on the other hand, affirming the importance of cultural
communication via international trade in cultural products [2]. In 2005, despite fierce criticism and
strong resistance expressed mainly by the US Government, UNESCO adopted the Convention on
the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions [3]. The Convention sets
standards and parameters for its parties in the design and implementation of policies, with respect
to cultural goods [4].
The World Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainable development
as, “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” [5] (p. 43). Since then, the United Nations has committed itself
to mainstreaming sustainability through all its policies. The Conference on Sustainable
Development in Rio de Janeiro renewed the commitment of the United Nations to sustainable
development [6], and stressed the interrelation of the three pillars of sustainability:
environmental, social, and economic. Without environmental sustainability, the very existence of
human societies is threatened, but the social and economic aspects are also vital. Conflict, amongst
and within nations as well as ideologies, has always been a threat to human well‐being and
development and, since the advent of highly destructive technologies, also poses an existential
threat. Economic sustainability is necessary for the ongoing provision of human needs and
well‐being.
In 2013, UNESCO adopted the Hanzhou Declaration [7], which recommended the inclusion of
culture as the fourth pillar of sustainability. The UN System Task Team had highlighted the need to
integrate culture into policies for sustainable development [8], noting the failure of past policies
which had not paid enough attention to cultural context. Ostrom (2007) makes the point that, in
developing policies relating to the sustainability of social‐ecological systems, there is a need to look
beyond panaceas [9]. The human social system (culture) is just as much part of the environment
within which effective policies for sustainability need to function as the biological/ecological
system. Therefore, a policy that works well in one culture or society may not do so in another.
Culture is not easily defined, but it can be seen as a lens through which we view social and
economic reality, and through which we act on and shape the environment [10]. Hawkes (2001)
proposes three inter‐related aspects of culture that emerge from the literature; culture is,
simultaneously: our inherent values and aspirations; the means by which we develop and transmit
these values and aspirations; and the manifestations of them [11]. Appadurai (2013) also notes the
greatly varying definitions of culture from immaterial “ideas about human creativity and values” to
material “matters of heritage, monuments, and expressions” [12] (p. 179).
The manifestations of culture, which may be either tangible or intangible, are what is
commonly perceived as culture in everyday terms; that is, the past and present output of what is
often referred to as the arts. It is only these measurable manifestations of culture as goods and
services, which can potentially be traded, that we deal with in the empirical work which follows.
UNESCO (2016) classifies cultural goods and services as belonging to six domains: cultural and
natural heritage, performance and celebration, visual arts and crafts, books and press, audio‐visual
and interactive media, and design and creative services [1].
Cultural diversity is analogous with biodiversity, with each type of diversity reinforcing the
other and both essential for sustainability [13].
Globalization and (more specifically) trade in cultural goods and services may have the
potential to reduce cultural diversity; however, given the locus of political power, and
homogenization within (rather than across) nation states is, perhaps, a greater threat to cultural
diversity. The loss of languages is a notable feature of loss of cultural diversity, with over a third of
the languages in existence in the mid‐twentieth century already extinct, endangered, or vulnerable
[14].
More than twenty‐five years ago, Appadurai (1990) pointed out that the “sheer speed, scale,
and volume” of flows of “people, machinery, money, images, and ideas” in the late twentieth
century greatly exceeded that during previous historical periods, and proposed a framework of five
‘scapes’ [15] (p. 301), corresponding to these five flows, through which to analyse the process of
cultural globalization. For example, the acceleration of migration in this century reinforces
Appadurai’s point that deterritorialization of migrant populations, while increasing the potential
for ethnic conflict, also creates new markets for purveyors of cultural goods.
According to basic trade theory, a country’s trade pattern is mainly determined by its
comparative advantage, which is related to fundamental factors such as productivity, resource
endowments, and economies of scale. Given the specific nature of cultural goods, a fundamental
question arises: What role, if any, does national culture play in comparative advantage in cultural
goods? Surprisingly, existing studies on the relationship between national culture and trade in
cultural goods mainly focus on how cultural proximity influences bilateral trade in cultural goods
[16–19], and do not directly say much about the relationship between national culture and
comparative advantage in cultural goods.
This paper aims to examine the link between national culture and comparative advantage in
cultural goods. As discussed above, culture is difficult to define and, therefore, even more difficult to
put in measurable terms. However, the seminal work of Hofstede (1980, 2001, 2010) has gained
widespread acceptance in the literature of International Business [20–22], in providing measures
with which to compare national cultures. We employ Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture as a
means to investigate the impact of culture on comparative advantage in cultural goods. The
remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 theoretically explores the impact of each
cultural dimension on comparative advantage in cultural goods; Section 3 sets out the methods and
data to be used in testing the hypotheses developed in Section 2; Section 4 presents the results of
estimating the model set out in Section 3; Section 5 presents a number of tests of the robustness of the
results; And Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. Hypothesis Development
Cultural goods are defined as goods conveying ideas, symbols, and ways of life, some of which
may be subject to copyrights [23]. They include books, magazines, multimedia products, software,
recordings, films, videos, audio‐visual programs, crafts, and fashion. They are different from other
goods in that their value derives from irreproducible characteristics that are intrinsic to the way they
are viewed by consumers. The unique characteristics of cultural goods are dependent on human
creativity at both the individual and group level [24]. Creativity is a phenomenon whereby
something new and somehow valuable is formed [25–26]. Successful new cultural products can help
society to develop new markets, as well as to cater to the emerging needs of existing markets. The
relationship between national culture and comparative advantage in cultural goods mainly relies on
how national culture influences creativity, at both the individual and group level.
Hofstede (2001) defines culture to be “the collective programming of the mind, which
distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” [21] (p. 9). On the basis
of a study of IBM workers in more than 50 countries, Hofstede (1980) originally identified four
dimensions of culture: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus
femininity, and uncertainty avoidance [20]. Later, based on a study of Chinese employees, Hofstede
(2001) added long‐term versus short‐term orientation as a fifth cultural dimension [21]. Finally, in
2010, on the basis of Bulgarian sociologist Minkov’s work and an extensive global investigation of
values, a sixth dimension (indulgence versus restraint) was added to the Hofstede model [22]. These
dimensions (which we describe further below), although based on surveys of individuals, are used
to describe a society as a whole.
Hofstede’s approach to culture has been subject to a number of criticisms. These include
questioning of the very idea of the measurability of culture, as well as the existence of national
cultures. If, indeed, we were to accept the view that culture is not measurable in any meaningful way
[27–28], then the methods of economics and econometrics, in particular, would not be at all
applicable to the question under consideration. The question of the existence of culture at the level of
the nation state raises a difficulty concerning the appropriate unit of analysis. McSweeney (2002)
notes that Hofstede’s conception of culture is one that is territorially unique, for example, “although
the state ‘Great Britain’ is composed of at least three nations—England, Scotland and
Wales—Hofstede treats it as a single entity within a single ‘national’ culture” [29] (p. 92). Data on
trade is, of course, maintained at the national level so that if culture is applicable at a sub‐national
level or, in fact, crosses national borders, then measurement of our intended independent and
dependent variables would be incongruent. While the existence of sub‐cultures within national
boundaries and even the disintegration of nation states and realignment of borders cannot be
denied, Minkov and Hofstede (2012) use World Values Survey data to show that sub‐national
regions tend to cluster strongly along national lines on basic cultural values, so that measures of
culture do adequately discriminate amongst nation states [30].
Despite its limitations, Hofstede’s framework has continued to maintain an important role in
the field of International Business. Each of the dimensions in Hofstede’s six‐dimensional model
illustrates an aspect of cultural differences in people’s values, beliefs, and behavior patterns across
countries [21]. Each dimension is scaled as an index, running from 0 to 100. The rule of thumb is that
if a score is under 50, the culture scores relatively low on that scale and if any score is over 50, the
culture scores high on that scale. Figure 1 provides an example of cross‐county differences on these
dimensions of culture in China, Germany, Japan, and the USA. The greatest variability in Figure 1 is
on the dimension of individualism versus collectivism, with China nearest to the collectivist end of
this scale and the USA near to the individualistic extreme.
100 95
91 92
87 88
90
83
80
80
67 66 66 68
70 65
62
60 54
50 46 46
40 40 42
40 35
30
30 26 24
20
20
10
0
Power Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty Long‐term Indulgence
distance avoidance orientation
China Germany Japan USA

Figure 1. Cultural dimensions—China, Germany, Japan, USA
We briefly describe each index and its hypothesized relationship to comparative advantage in
cultural goods in the sub‐sections below. Further detail on the dimensions can be found on
Hofstede’s website [31].
2.1. Power Distance
Power distance refers to the extent to which lower ranking individuals in a society expect and
accept that power is distributed unequally [21]. In societies with a high power distance, people are
more willing to conform to a hierarchy and powerful people are regarded as entitled to be more
autocratic. In societies with low power distance, inequality is less tolerable and democratic
participation is encouraged.
Creativity largely depends on how flexibly and imaginatively people can approach problems
[32,33]. Low power distance gives people autonomy to choose the means to solve problems and
achieve goals, which encourages creativity. At the level of a group, creativity relies on individuals
having the freedom to voice their ideas. Under cultural circumstances with low power distance,
individuals in superior positions are more likely to encourage upward communication and listen to
those in inferior positions. Societies low in power distance encourage active participation by many
and induce more creativity in the production of cultural goods. We therefore hypothesize that power
distance is negatively associated with comparative advantage in cultural goods.
2.2. Individualism versus Collectivism
The dimension of individualism versus collectivism refers to “the relationship between the
individual and the collectivity which prevails in a given society” [20] (p. 213). Societies characterized
by an individualistic culture have loose ties among members and value individual uniqueness and
self‐determination. Members of such a society primarily take care of themselves and their immediate
family. Societies with a collectivist culture, on the other hand, hold group values and beliefs. Hence,
members identify with the group and are more concerned about collective interests.
Successful innovation and new product development requires individuals to think
independently [34]. Individuals with independent judgment can see an opportunity that has been
overlooked by others and put forward riskier ideas, allowing more new and creative ideas to be
developed. Moreover, the individual uniqueness valued by an individualistic society undoubtedly
has positive effects on within‐group heterogeneity, which can improve the ability of societies to
adapt to a new technological paradigm and to come up with new concepts and ideas [35–37]. We
therefore hypothesize that individualism is positively associated with comparative advantage in
cultural goods.
2.3. Masculinity versus Femininity
Masculinity versus femininity is defined as the degree to which assertiveness (masculinity)
prevails over nurturance (femininity). In a masculine society, people are ego‐oriented and live in
order to work, whereas in a feminine society, people are more modest and work in order to live.
Masculine societies place greater value on competition, ambition, and career achievement. In
contrast, feminine societies put more emphasis on equality, caring for the weak, and the quality of
life [20].
The motivation to be creative stems from two different sources: intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation [38]. Intrinsic motivation is a drive resulting from internal rewards, such as personal
interest, desires, hopes, goals, etc. Extrinsic motivation involves engaging in behavior in order to
earn external rewards, such as payment, rewards, fame, approval from others, etc. The materialistic
nature of masculine cultures appears to promote creative endeavors by both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation [39,40]. Therefore, we hypothesize that masculinity is positively associated with
2.4. Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance reflects the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by
uncertain or unknown situations [20]. Societies exhibiting strong uncertainty avoidance have low
acceptance for uncertainty and ambiguity, so they actively devise means to minimize the occurrence
of unknown and unusual circumstances. In contrast, societies with low uncertainty avoidance
possess high tolerance for uncertainty, so they can accept variety and feel relatively comfortable in
unstructured situations or changeable environments.
The process of generating something new is always accompanied by uncertainty and
risk‐taking. Investigations of why some people are more creative than others suggest that, from the
perspective of personality, one of primary traits of creative individuals is tolerance for ambiguity
[41]. Therefore, societies with high uncertainty avoidance are less likely to develop innovations.
Following this reasoning, we hypothesize that uncertainty avoidance is negatively associated with
2.5. Long‐Term versus Short‐Term Orientation
Long‐term orientation versus short‐term orientation is concerned with the different ways
cultures view time and the importance of the past, the present, and the future [21]. Societies with a
long‐term orientation focus on the future and, therefore, their people value persistence,
perseverance, thrift, and being able to adapt. By contrast, societies with a short‐term orientation
appreciate the present or past and consider them more important than the future; personal
steadiness and stability, tradition, and the current social hierarchy are valued.
Creativity undoubtedly occurs through a long process. Wallas (1926) considered creativity to be
a legacy of the evolutionary process [42], which allowed humans to quickly adapt to rapidly
changing environments. In Wallas’ model, creativity is explained as a process consisting of five
stages: preparation, incubation, intimation, illumination or insight, and verification. Torrance (1968)
defined creativity as a process of becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge,
missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty; searching for solutions,
making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies, then testing and retesting these
hypotheses (and possibly modifying and retesting them); and, finally, communicating the results
[43]. Some studies also show that the most outstanding creative individuals spend almost all of their
time and energy in their work and have a breakthrough only after a long time, often more than ten
years. Their whole lives are full of a cycle of hard‐work and breakthroughs [44,45]. Therefore,
societies with a long‐term orientation are more likely to devote their time and energy to creativity for
adaption to change. We hypothesize that long‐term orientation is positively associated with
2.6. Indulgence versus Restraint
Indulgence versus restraint is designed to measure how freely people can satisfy their basic
needs and desires, and how strictly social norms are followed and gratification is suppressed and
regulated [22]. In societies characterized by indulgence, people tend to accept relatively free
gratification of natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. In contrast, restrained
societies tend to hold that strict norms need to be adhered to in order to curb and regulate such
gratification. Therefore, in such societies, positive emotions are usually less freely expressed.
Studies on creativity traits from the perspective of personality have indicated that creative
people tend to be more open to new experiences, less conventional, and more impulsive [46]. This
implies that an indulgent culture is more likely to favor creativity. Moreover, various researches on
organizational effectiveness have found that creativity more often occurs in a workplace where
members share excitement and a willingness to help, and recognize each other’s talents [32,33]; these
are the typical characteristics of an indulgent culture. Therefore, we hypothesize that indulgence is
positively associated with comparative advantage in cultural goods.
3. Methodology and Data
In this section we set out the methods and discuss the data set that we use to test the hypotheses
outlined in Section 2.
3.1. Methodology
On the basis of the hypotheses developed above and trade theories, we propose the following
pooled estimation model:
RCAit    Culturei    LPit   Populationit   PHKit   HUKit

(1)
 landlockedi  it
where i and t denote the indices for country and time, respectively.
The dependent variable RCAit is the revealed comparative advantage index of cultural goods,
which is used to measure comparative advantage in cultural goods. The most commonly‐used
revealed comparative advantage index is the Balassa (1965) index [47], defined as follows:
E ji E jw
RCAit  (2)
Ei Ew
where Eji and Ei are a country i’s exports of cultural goods and a country i’s total goods exports,
respectively. Ejw and Ew are world exports of cultural goods and the world exports of all goods,
respectively. If RCAit > 1, then a country is said to have a comparative advantage in cultural goods.
Culturei is a vector of the dimensions of the national culture of a country i, measured by the
value of the one or more of the six cultural dimensions developed by Hofstede, in logarithm form.
As the hypotheses developed in last section suggest, the cultural dimensions of power distance
(PDI) and uncertainty avoidance (UAI) are expected to be negatively associated with a comparative
advantage in cultural products, while the other four cultural dimensions (individualism (IDV),
masculinity (MAS), long‐term orientation (LTO), and indulgence (IND)) are all positively related to
the comparative advantage of cultural products.
We introduce a number of control variables into the model on the basis of existing trade
theories [48–50].
LPit represents the labor productivity of country i in period t, measured by GDP (in constant
2005 US dollars) per worker and denominated in thousands of dollars per worker, in log form. The
introduction of labor productivity is based on Ricardian trade theory, which implies a country will
export goods that its labor produces relatively efficiently.
Populationit is the size of population, measured in millions of persons in country i in period t,
entered in logarithm form, and used to control for the market size of country i. This variable is
introduced based on the New Trade Theory [50], which suggests a large market can help firms take
advantage of economies of scale, and thereby generate comparative advantage.
There are two variables used to control for endowments of the factors of production. Both
variables are introduced into the model due to the Heckscher‐Ohlin Theorem, which predicts that
countries tend to export goods, the production of which is intensive in those factors with which the
countries are abundantly endowed. PHKit represents the endowment of both physical capital and
land in country i in period t, measured by the ratio of gross fixed capital formation (in constant 2005
US dollars) to land area, and denominated in thousands of dollars per sq. km, entered in logarithm
in form. HUKit is defined as the endowment of human capital in country i in period t, measured by
the ratio of the labor force with tertiary education to the total labor force. The creation, production,
distribution, and dissemination of cultural goods relies on both skilled workers and physical
capital, thus cultural goods are likely to be intensive in human capital and physical capital.
Therefore, countries with abundant human capital and physical capital are expected to have a
Landlockedi is a dummy variable indicating whether country i is landlocked. If country i is
landlocked, it takes the value of one, and zero otherwise. Landlocked countries are expected to have
a lower comparative advantage in cultural goods, due to higher export costs.
 is a constant and it  N (0,  u2 ) is an i.i.d. (independent identically distributed) random
error term.
The definitions and measurements of the variables in the model are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Definitions and measurements of main variables.
Variables Definition and Measurement
The revealed comparative advantage index (the Balassa index) of cultural
RCAit
goods.
National culture of country i, measured by six cultural dimensions developed
by Hofstede, i.e., Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism versus
Culturei Collectivism (IDV), Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS), Uncertainty
Avoidance Index (UAI), Long Term Orientation versus Short Term Normative
Orientation (LTO), and Indulgence versus Restraint (IND).
Labor productivity of country i in period t, measured by GDP (constant 2005
LPjt US dollars) as a proportion of the labor force, and denominated in thousands of
dollars per worker.
The size of the population in country i in period t, used to measure the market
Populationit
size of country i, and denominated in millions of persons.
The endowment of physical capital and land in country i in period t, measured
PHKit by the ratio of gross fixed capital formation (constant 2005 US dollars) to land
area, and denominated in thousands of dollars per sq. km.
The endowment of human capital in country i in period t, measured by the ratio
HUKit
of the labor force with tertiary education to the total labor force.
A dummy variable indicating whether country i is landlocked. If country i is
Landlockedi
landlocked, this dummy variable takes the value of 1, and 0 otherwise.
3.2. Data Set
We would like to include as many countries and as lengthy a time series as possible in our
dataset. However, the number of countries is constrained by the availability of data on the cultural
dimensions, which are the core explanatory variables in the regression model. The time horizon is
constrained by the availability of data on cultural trade, measured by a consistent statistical
standard. Therefore, this study utilizes an unbalanced panel of 98 countries over the period 2004 to
2014.
Exports of cultural goods between 2004 and 2013, denominated in US dollars at current prices,
are sourced from the Globalization of Cultural Trade: A Shift in Consumption‐ International Flows of
Cultural Goods and Services 2004–2013, issued by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization [1]. Exports of cultural goods in 2014 are sourced from the UNCOMTRADE
database of the United Nations. Exports on all goods at country and world level, denominated in US
dollars at current prices, are available in the database of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
It would be interesting to incorporate an analysis of trade in cultural services but, to do so,
improved data would be required. According to UNESCO (2016), “the analysis of cultural services
data will continue to be challenging” [1] (p. 66), until countries are required to furnish more detailed
data. Data on cultural goods and services are compiled using different standards. Data on flows of
cultural goods are compiled using the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
version 2007, using customs statistics developed by the World Customs Organization, while cultural
services data are captured using the Extended Balance of Payments Services Classification System.
Also, there are currently a lot of missing data. In our source, only 87 countries have any data, with
most not covering anything like the whole period.
The data on the six dimensions of national culture are collected from Hofstede’s personal
website [30].
Labor productivity is available in the database of the International Labor Organization (ILO).
The data on population, land area, and labor force with tertiary education (% of total) are sourced
from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators. The data on gross fixed capital formation are
available in the UNCTAD database of the United Nations. The variable Landlocked is compiled from
the database of CEPII (the French Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales).
Descriptive statistics and the coefficients of correlation of the variables are shown in Table 3.
The median value of power distance and uncertainty avoidance are both greater than 60, implying
that, in our sample, people in most countries have low acceptance for uncertain and ambiguity, and
also have high tolerance for the inequality of power distribution. For the other four cultural
dimensions, their median and mean values are both are less 50, indicating that, in the sample, most
of countries are characterized by collectivism, femininity, short‐term orientation, and restraint. The
coefficients of correlations between most of the explanatory variables are low, so that
multicollinearity in the model is not likely to be a problem. The exceptions are the correlations
between LP and PDI (−0.62), and LP and IDV (−0.68).
Table 3. Coefficients of correlation and descriptive statistics.
RCA PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO IND LP Population PHK HUK Landlocked
RCA 1 −0.06 * 0.14 *** 0.15 *** −0.18 *** 0.04 −0.06 * 0.08 ** 0.30 *** 0.04 −0.01 0.04
−0.62 −0.37
PDI 1 −0.67 *** 0.11 *** 0.16 *** −0.05 −0.28 *** 0.14 *** 0.02 −0.07 **
*** ***
0.68 0.45
IDV 1 0.04 −0.15 *** 0.21 *** 0.17 *** −0.04 −0.08 ** 0.11 ***
*** ***
−0.13
MAS 1 0.01 0.05 −0.00 −0.02 0.16 *** 0.04 0.26 ***
***
−0.08 −0.17
UAI 1 0.07 * −0.11 *** −0.19 *** −0.30 *** −0.10 ***
** ***
0.23 0.27
LTO 1 −0.51 *** 0.18 *** 0.21 *** 0.25 ***
*** ***
0.30
IND 1 −0.16 *** −0.09 ** 0.08 * −0.09 **
***
0.49
LP 1 −0.14 *** 0.18 *** 0.08 ***
***
Population 1 −0.05 * −0.04 −0.09 ***
PHK 1 0.06 −0.04
HUK 1 −0.07 *
Landlocked 1
Obs 976 976 976 976 976 835 785 976 976 974 608 976
Median 0.44 66 35 47 65 45 48 18.18 14.21 111.59 24.6 0
Mean 0.76 62.32 40.70 47.81 64.30 45.29 47.66 34.79 63.87 1684.14 25.46 0.12
Std.Dev 1.08 21.03 22.58 18.91 21.94 22.32 22.25 37.43 191.24 8005.70 9.95 0.33
Min 0 11 6 5 8 4 0 0.3490 0.2921 1.1558 0.1 0
Max 15.29 100 91 100 100 100 100 205.75 1364.27 78,866.78 56.3 1
Notes: *** denotes the significance level of 1%, ** denotes the significance level of 5%, and * denotes
the significance level of 10%.
The median and mean values of RCA are 0.44 and 0.76, respectively, implying that most of the
countries in our sample lack comparative advantage in cultural goods. RCA has a very wide range,
with maximum and minimum values of 15.29 and 0, respectively. This suggests that there is an
uneven pattern of comparative advantage in cultural goods across most of the countries. Table 4
shows the average values of RCA over 2004–2014 for each of the countries in the sample.
Table 4. Average RCA 2004–2014.
Country RCA Country RCA Country RCA

India 4.3237 Colombia 0.6723 Philippines 0.2603
Dominican Republic 4.2588 Sweden 0.6625 South Africa 0.2467
Switzerland 3.4160 Poland 0.6136 Iran 0.2408
Lebanon 3.3670 Indonesia 0.5947 Uruguay 0.2365
United Kingdom 3.0173 Luxembourg 0.5884 Romania 0.2338
Bhutan 2.2920 Egypt 0.5874 Namibia 0.2253
Jordan 2.2647 Netherlands 0.5825 Hungary 0.2074
Turkey 1.8219 Serbia 0.5739 Malawi 0.1927
United States 1.7153 Mexico 0.5606 Ukraine 0.1788

China 1.7103 Korea 0.5501 Morocco 0.1599
Italy 1.6491 Sri Lanka 0.5451 Argentina 0.1574
Thailand 1.5704 Fiji 0.4872 Senegal 0.1436
Pakistan 1.5495 Canada 0.4753 Saudi Arabia 0.1334
Nepal 1.4976 Slovenia 0.4616 Russia 0.1296
Panama 1.4345 Japan 0.4558 Brazil 0.1144
Singapore 1.3034 Hong Kong 0.4552 Norway 0.1143
Austria 1.2370 Portugal 0.4530 Kuwait 0.1102
Ireland 1.1993 Syria 0.4414 Ecuador 0.1049
Viet Nam 1.1518 Kenya 0.4265 Tanzania 0.0967
France 1.1067 Slovakia 0.4178 Bangladesh 0.0902
Croatia 1.0636 Guatemala 0.4173 Trinidad and Tobago 0.0889
Malta 0.9674 Belgium 0.4165 Burkina Faso 0.0861
United Arab Emirates 0.9645 Peru 0.4157 Nigeria 0.0853
Greece 0.9110 Lithuania 0.4152 Chile 0.0782
Malaysia 0.9098 Costa Rica 0.3927 Albania 0.0750
Germany 0.8744 New Zealand 0.3818 Iceland 0.0615
Denmark 0.8110 Australia 0.3623 Zambia 0.0525
Latvia 0.8080 Jamaica 0.3561 Mozambique 0.0388
Estonia 0.7262 Finland 0.3377 Honduras 0.0191
Czech Republic 0.7246 Cabo Verde 0.3124 Suriname 0.0146
Spain 0.7238 Ghana 0.3070 Venezuela 0.0033
El Salvador 0.7157 Bulgaria 0.3016 Sierra Leone 0.0020
Israel 0.6992 Ethiopia 0.2892
4. Empirical Results
Based on Equation (1), we run a number of regressions to identify the impact of national culture
on comparative advantage in cultural goods. First, we use only the control variables, derived from
standard trade theories, in the regression model. Then we enter each cultural dimension, one at a
time. Finally, all six cultural dimensions are introduced into the regression model. The estimation
results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. The effects of national culture on the comparative advantage in cultural goods.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) VIF

−0.2257 ** −0.2215 *
PDI 2.40
(0.0941) (0.1216)
0.1415 * 0.3964 ***
IDV 2.44
(0.0774) (0.1068)
0.1624 *** 0.1629 **
MAS 1.96
(0.0623) (0.0755)
−0.2154 ** −0.1931 **
UAI 1.45
(0.0844) (0.0940)
−0.3410 *** −0.1636
LTO 2.84
(0.0812) (0.114)
0.3178 *** 0.2341 **
IND 2.34
(0.0810) (0.1047)
−0.3472
0.0017 −0.0612 −0.0599 0.0147 0.0026 −0.0391 −0.1583 **
LP *** 5.05
(0.0465) (0.0532) (0.0574) (0.0466) (0.0463) (0.0499) (0.0626)
(0.0824)
0.0924 *** 0.0976 *** 0.0837 *** 0.0646 ** 0.0947 *** 0.1109 *** 0.0896 *** 0.0624 **
Population 1.62
(0.0238) (0.0238) (0.0243) (0.026) (0.0237) (0.0240) (0.0252) (0.0291)
PHK 0.1355 *** 0.1472 *** 0.1444 *** 0.1239 *** 0.1176 *** 0.1773 *** 0.1694 *** 0.1952 *** 2.98
(0.0237) (0.0242) (0.0242) (0.024) (0.0247) (0.0250) (0.0257) (0.0811)

−0.0439 −0.0529 −0.0539 −0.0334 −0.0584 0.0269 0.0318 0.024
HUK 1.52
(0.0713) (0.0711) (0.0714) (0.0711) (0.0712) (0.0754) (0.0812) (0.0328)
0.1904 * 0.1488 0.1468 0.0678 0.2218 ** 0.3948 *** 0.2950 ** 0.1302
Landlocked 1.76
(0.1097) (0.1106) (0.112) (0.1188) (0.1098) (0.1174) (0.1161) (0.1417)
−1.1327
−0.0698 0.9929 ** −0.3756 −0.5978 ** 0.9553 ** 0.8307 *** −0.0031
Constant ***
(0.2216) (0.4948) (0.2773) (0.2995) (0.4583) (0.3056) (0.9910)
(0.3806)
F value 13.42 *** 12.23 *** 11.78 *** 12.42 *** 12.37 *** 14.91 *** 13.75 *** 11.5 ***
Adj R2 0.0928 0.0999 0.0963 0.1014 0.1010 0.1295 0.1247 0.1771
Obs 608 608 608 608 608 562 538 538
the significance level of 10%. Standard errors are reported in parentheses.
Column (1) in Table 5 presents the estimation results without the cultural dimensions. Only
population and the physical capital variables are significantly related to comparative advantage in
cultural goods. The coefficients of both of these variables are positive and significant at the 1% level,
which is consistent with the theoretical predictions. The dummy variable measuring whether a
country is landlocked is positive, which is not in line with expectation, but significance is only at the
10% level.
Columns (2) to (7) show the estimation results with each of the cultural dimensions added on its
own; all are individually significant, at least at the 10% level, and all accord with expectations (with
the exception of the long‐term orientation variable (LTO), the coefficient of which is negative instead
of positive (as hypothesized)).
Column (8) presents the estimation results of the fully specified model with all six national
cultural dimensions. The final column of Table 5 shows the variance inflation factors (VIF), none of
which is above 10, suggesting that multicollinearity is not a problem in the fully specified model.
The results for each of the cultural dimension variables are very much in accord with the regressions
reported in columns (2) to (7), with the signs the same, and each coefficient having the same order of
magnitude. The unexpected negative sign on LTO is no longer statistically significant.
5. Robustness
We test the robustness of the results in Table 5 by investigating the impact of outliers on the
results. Specifically, we first removed the three countries with the highest and lowest comparative
advantage in cultural goods. The three countries with the highest values of RCA are India, the
Dominican Republic, and Switzerland; the three countries with the lowest values of RCA are Sierra
Leone, Venezuela, and Suriname. The results on omitting these six countries are shown in Table 6.
We also removed all observations with residuals above 2.5 standard deviations. These results are
shown in Table 7.
Table 6. Robustness: removing three countries with the highest and lowest RCA.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) VIF

−0.1576 ** −0.2251 ***
PDI 2.32
(0.0697) (0.0872)
0.0757 0.2188 ***
IDV 2.42
(0.0592) (0.0796)
0.1512 *** 0.1978 ***
MAS 1.92
(0.0463) (0.0543)
−0.1154 * −0.1430 **
UAI 1.45
(0.0628) (0.0678)
−0.1712 *** −0.0101
LTO 2.68
(0.0617) (0.0841)
IND 0.1639 *** 0.1270 * 2.31
(0.0606) (0.0763)
0.0498 0.0054 0.0163 0.0611 * 0.0493 0.0392 −0.0127 −0.1376 **
LP 4.96
(0.0346) (0.0397) (0.0434) (0.0345) (0.0346) (0.0365) (0.0466) (0.0609)
0.0752 *** 0.0792 *** 0.0708 *** 0.0487 ** 0.0767 *** 0.0905 *** 0.0798 *** 0.0479 **
Population 1.59
(0.0178) (0.0178) (0.0181) (0.0194) (0.0178) (0.0175) (0.0183) (0.0211)
0.0965 *** 0.1051 *** 0.1017 *** 0.0855 *** 0.0873 *** 0.119 *** 0.1131 *** 0.1136 ***
PHK 2.97
(0.0176) (0.0180) (0.0181) (0.0178) (0.0183) (0.0183) (0.0187) (0.0240)
−0.0681 −0.0751 −0.0747 −0.0567 −0.0761 −0.0495 −0.0566 −0.0784
HUK 1.55
(0.0527) (0.0526) (0.0530) (0.0524) (0.0528) (0.0549) (0.0591) (0.0593)
−0.1743 ** −0.2026 ** −0.1995 ** −0.2918 *** −0.1580 * −0.0776 −0.1188 −0.3423 ***
Landlocked 1.66
(0.0866) (0.0872) (0.0888) (0.0931) (0.0869) (0.0906) (0.0899) (0.1069)
0.0594 0.8022 ** −0.1015 −0.4300 * 0.6103 * 0.5050 ** −0.4854 * 0.2218
Constant
(0.1648) (0.3673) (0.2074) (0.2218) (0.3420) (0.2275) (0.2825) (0.7152)
F value 15.06 *** 13.49 *** 12.83 *** 14.54 *** 13.16 *** 15.22 *** 14.08 *** 11.60 ***
Adj R2 0.1074 0.1137 0.1084 0.1221 0.1111 0.1369 0.1426 0.1848
Obs 585 585 585 585 585 539 515 515
Table 7. Robustness: removing observations with residuals larger than 2.5 SD.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) VIF

−0.2114 *** −0.2875 ***
PDI 2.37
(0.0694) (0.0863)
0.0941 0.2494 ***
IDV 2.45
(0.0575) (0.0763)
0.1016 ** 0.1710 ***
MAS 1.95
(0.0464) (0.0536)
−0.1328 ** −0.1500 **
UAI 1.45
(0.0627) (0.0668)
−0.0696 0.1667 **
LTO 2.85
(0.0604) (0.0835)
0.1771 *** 0.2594 ***
IND 2.37
(0.0583) (0.0750)
0.0613 0.0022 0.0198 0.0690 ** 0.0613 * 0.0588 −0.0031 −0.2007 ***
LP 4.97
(0.0346) (0.0395) (0.0429) (0.0347) (0.0345) (0.0364) (0.0454) (0.0591)
0.0996 *** 0.1049 *** 0.0940 *** 0.0817 *** 0.1012 *** 0.1164 *** 0.1066 *** 0.0715 ***
Population 1.61
(0.0178) (0.0177) (0.0181) (0.0195) (0.0177) (0.0175) (0.0182) (0.0207)
0.1135 *** 0.1246 *** 0.1200 *** 0.1062 *** 0.1026 *** 0.1250 *** 0.1328 *** 0.1289 ***
PHK 2.99
(0.0176) (0.0179) (0.1800) (0.0179) (0.0183) (0.0183) (0.0185) (0.0235)
−0.0723 −0.0809 −0.0791 −0.0653 −0.0812 −0.0788 −0.0529 −0.0916
HUK 1.52
(0.0527) (0.0524) (0.0528) (0.0527) (0.0527) (0.0547) (0.0582) (0.0577)
0.0510 0.0126 0.0208 −0.0269 0.0700 0.1230 0.1196 −0.1458
Landlocked 1.71
(0.0835) (0.0838) (0.0854) (0.0905) (0.0837) (0.0873) (0.0857) (0.1025)
−0.1357 0.8591 ** −0.3376 −0.4642 ** 0.4974 0.0322 −0.7804 *** −0.5828
Constant
(0.1646) (0.3652) (0.2055) (0.2222) (0.3409) (0.2262) (0.2744) (0.7056)
F value 21.87 *** 20.03 *** 18.72 *** 19.15 *** 19.08 *** 20.96 *** 21.26 *** 16.96 ***
Adj R2 0.1492 0.161 0.1516 0.1547 0.1542 0.1791 0.188 0.2506
Obs 596 596 596 596 596 550 526 526
Comparing the fully specified models in Tables 5 and 6, we find the results are very robust to
the omission of the six outlier countries. The major difference is that, in Table 6, the coefficient of the
variable Landlocked becomes negative and significant at the 1% level, in line with what one would
expect theoretically.
The estimates in column (8) of Table 7 are very similar to those in Table 6. The coefficients of the
control variables for population and physical capital retain their signs and significance, and are of
similar magnitude to those in Tables 5 and 6. The coefficient of Landlocked is still negative but no
longer significant. The coefficient of LTO is now positive and significant at the 5% level so that,
removing all the outliers with large residuals, the estimation results support all the hypotheses
relating to the dimensions of culture, as developed in Section 2. Specifically, individualism,
masculinity, long‐term orientation, and indulgence are all positively associated with comparative
advantage in cultural products, while power distance and uncertainty avoidance exert a negative
influence on comparative advantage in cultural products.
The variables used in the model have different units of measurement, which means that we
cannot readily compare the magnitude of the effects of different variables (as reported in Tables 5–
7). The cultural variables are all measured on a 0 to 100 scale but, even with these variables, the
same score on two different variables does not necessarily have the same meaning. In Table 8, we
report standardised coefficients corresponding to the unstandardized coefficients in Tables 5–7.
Standardised coefficients are calculated by converting all variables to Z‐scores, thereby removing
the units of measurement. Having transformed the dependent variable and all of the independent
variables so that they have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1, a standardised coefficient tells
us how many standard deviations the dependent variable will change for a 1 standard deviation
increase in the corresponding independent variable.
Table 8. Standardised coefficients.
Table 5 Table 6 Table 7

PDI −0.1104 −0.1565 −0.1937
IDV 0.2269 0.1703 0.1933
MAS 0.1183 0.2009 0.1683
UAI −0.0967 −0.1011 −0.1019
LTO −0.0946 −0.0078 0.1273
IND 0.1339 0.1007 0.2009
LP −0.3706 −0.2003 −0.2859
Population 0.1069 0.1143 0.1652
PHK 0.4021 0.3253 0.3578
Note: Only variables significant in Table 7 are reported.
Focussing on the results in the final column of Table 8 (which corresponds to those in Table 7,
using a sample in which observations with residuals of more than 2.5 standard deviations have
been removed), we can see the coefficients are all of the same order of magnitude. The coefficients
of the proxies for culture vary by only a factor of 2, with labour productivity and physical capital
having effects of a slightly larger magnitude. For a 1 standard deviation change in any of these
variables, the eﬀect on comparative advantage lies in the range of −0.10 to 0.36.
6. Conclusions and Policy Implications
With rapid growth of international trade in cultural goods, the threat of global cultural
homogenization has risen due to uneven flows of cultural goods. We suggest that various aspects of
national culture can possibly be identified as part of the reason for this imbalance in cultural trade.
This paper examines the determination of comparative advantage in cultural goods from the
perspective of national culture, as measured by Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions.
Using data from 98 countries over the period 2004 to 2014, we find that the cultural dimensions
of individualism, masculinity, long‐term orientation, and indulgence are positively, whereas the
cultural dimensions of power distance and uncertainty avoidance are negatively, associated with
comparative advantage in cultural products. It would, therefore, seem to follow that altering one or
more of these various dimensions of a national culture could improve a nation’s comparative
advantage in cultural products. However, policies to target any of the six dimensions would, if these
dimensions do indeed capture the essence of culture, risk altering the culture itself and even threaten
to add to the cultural homogenization. To avoid this, and to maintain cultural diversity, cultural
policies need to be re‐shaped in such a way as to enable a cultural environment that encourages
individuals and social groups to enhance creativity in cultural goods at the organizational and
national levels, but without damaging the very culture from which those goods emerge.
Future research could add directly to the quantitative evidence we have presented here,
particularly once data on trade in cultural services attains broader coverage. Also, as difficult as it
may be to reconcile the widely varying interpretations of culture from perspectives as different of
those of economics and anthropology, it is surely worthwhile to try to build understanding, since
culture so clearly matters for sustainable development.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge support from the National Social Sciences Fund of China (No.
13BRK013), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 15jnlh007).The authors are
grateful to two reviewers and Sajid Anwar from University of the Sunshine Coast for very helpful comments
and suggestions. All remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.
Author Contributions: Zhaobin Fan developed the theoretical hypothesis and wrote the paper. Shujuan
Huang collected data and conducted the empirical analysis. W. Robert J. Alexander contributed to the
introduction and empirical analysis. All authors read and improved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Globalization of Cultural
Trade: A Shift in Consumption‐International Flows of Cultural Goods and Services 2004–2013; UNESCO Institute
for Statistics: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2016.
2. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO Universal
Declaration on Cultural Diversity; The Workshops of UNESCO: Paris, France, 2001.
3. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Convention on the Protection
and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions; The Workshops of UNESCO: Paris, France, 2005.
4. Neuwirth, R.J. “United in Divergency”: A Commentary on the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions; Social Science Electronic Publishing: New York, NY, USA,
2006.
5. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future;
Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
6. United Nations (UN). Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012 66/288. The Future We Want;
United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
7. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Hangzhou Declaration:
Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies; UNESCO International Congress: Hangzhou,
China, 2013.
8. United Nations System Task Team (UNTT). UN System Task Team on the Post‐2015 UN Development Agenda;
UNTT: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
9. Ostrom, E. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 15181–
15187.
10. Brocchi, D. The cultural dimension of sustainability. In Religion and Dangerous Environmental Change:
Transdisciplinary Perspectives on the Ethics of Climate and Sustainability; Transaction Publishers: Fredericton,
Canada, 2012; Volume 5, p. 145.
11. Hawkes, J. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning; Common Ground
Publishing Pty Ltd.: Champaign, IL, USA, 2001.
12. Appadurai, A. The Future as Cultural Fact: Essays on the Global Condition; Verso: London, UK; New York,
NY, USA, 2013.
13. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP). Cultural Diversity and Biodiversity for Sustainable Development A Jointly
Convened UNESCO and UNEP High‐Level Roundtable Held on 3 September 2002 in Johannesburg during the
World Summit on Sustainable Development; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2003.
14. Moseley, C. (Ed.) Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2010.
15. Appadurai, A. Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory Cult. Soc. 1990, 7, 295–
310.
16. White, R.; Tadesse, B. Immigrants, Cultural Distance and U.S. State‐level Exports of Cultural Products. N.
Am. J. Econ. Financ. 2008, 19, 331–348.
17. Hanson, G.; Xiang, C. Trade Barriers and Trade Flows with Product Heterogeneity: An Application to US
Motion Picture Exports. J. Int. Econ. 2011, 83, 14–26.
18. Ferreira, F.; Waldfogel, J. Pop Internationalism: Has Half a Century of World Music Trade Displaced Local
Culture? Econ. J. 2013, 123, 634–664.
19. Holloway, I. Foreign Entry, Quality, and Cultural Distance: Product‐level Evidence from US Movie
Exports. Rev. World Econ. 2014, 150, 371–392.
20. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work‐Related Values; Sage Publications:
Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1980.
21. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001.
22. Hofstede, G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed.; Business Expert Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2010.
23. UNESCO. The 2009 UNESCO Framework for Culture Statistics; UNESCO Institute for Statistics: Montreal,
QC, Canada, 2009.
24. United Nations (UN). Creative Economy Report (2013 Special Edition): Widening Local Development Pathways;
United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
25. Mumford, M.D. Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? Taking Stock in Creativity Research. Creat.
Res. J. 2003, 15, 107–120.
26. Sternberg, R.J. Cognitive Psychology, 6th ed.; Wadsworth Publishing: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012.
27. Wallerstein, I. Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World‐system. Theory Cult. Soc. 1990,
7, 31–55.
28. Smelser, N.J. Culture: Coherent or Incoherent. In Theory of Culture; Munch, R., Smelser, N.J., Eds.;
University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1992; pp. 3–28.
29. McSweeney, B. Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences: A Triumph of
Faith‐A Failure of Analysis. Hum. Relat. 2002, 55, 89–118.
30. Minkov, M.; Hofstede, G. Is National Culture a Meaningful Concept? Cultural Values Delineate
Homogeneous National Clusters of In‐country Regions. Cross‐Cult. Res. 2012, 46, 133–159.
31. Hofstede, G. The 6 Dimensions of National Culture. 2017. Available online: http://geerthofstede.com/
culture‐geert‐hofstede‐gert‐jan‐hofstede/6d‐model‐of‐national‐culture/ (accessed on 20 May 2017).
32. Amabile, T.M. How to Kill Creativity. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998, 76, 76–87.
33. Sullivan, C.; Harper, G. Authors at Work: The Creative Environment; D.S. Brewer: Suffolk, UK, 2009.
34. Sternberg, R.J.; Lubart, T.I. The Concept of Creativity: Prospects and Paradigms. In Handbook of Creativity;
Sternberg, R.J., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999.
35. Ashraf, Q.H.; Galor, O. Cultural Diversity, Geographical Isolation, and the Origin of the Wealth of Nations; NBER
Working Paper, No. 17640; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011.
36. Harvey, S. A Different Perspective: The Multiple Effects of Deep Level Diversity on Group Creativity. J.
Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 49, 822–832.
37. Ashraf, Q.H.; Galor, O.; Klemp, M. Heterogeneity and Productivity; Working Papers; Williams College:
Williamstown, MI, USA, 2015.
38. Batey, M.; Furnham, A.F.; Safiullina, X. Intelligence, General Knowledge and Personality as Predictors of
Creativity. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2010, 20, 532–535.
39. Amabile, T.M. Creativity in Context: Update to “The Social Psychology of Creativity”; Westview Press: Boulder,
CO, USA, 1996.
40. Selart, M.; Nordström, T.; Kuvaas, B.; Takemura, K. Effects of Reward on Self‐regulation, Intrinsic
Motivation and Creativity. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 2008, 52, 439–458.
41. Furnham, A.; Nederstrom, M. Ability, Demographic and Personality Predictors of Creativity. Personal.
Individ. Differ. 2010, 44, 957–961.
42. Wallas, G. The Art of Thought. Smithsonian 1926, 62, 68–72.
43. Torrance, E.P. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Turnpike, NJ, USA, 1968.
44. Gardner, H. Creating Minds; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
45. Policastro, E.; Gardner, H. From Case Studies to Robust Generalizations: An Approach to the Study of
Creativity. In Handbook of Creativity; Sternberg, R.J., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA,
1999; pp. 225–231.
46. Feist, G.J. A Meta‐analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev.
1998, 2, 290–309.
47. Balassa, B. Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed” Comparative Advantage. Manch. School 1965, 33, 99–123.
48. Ricardo, D. The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation; Irwin Press: Homewood, IL, USA, 1963.
49. Ohlin, B. Interregional and International Trade; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1933.
50. Helpman, E.; Krugman, P.R. Market Structure and Foreign Trade; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1985.
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
PUBLISHED BY
World's largest Science,

Technology & Medicine
Open Access book publisher
103,000+
3,100+ INTERNATIONAL 102+ MILLION
OPEN ACCESS BOOKS AUTHORS AND EDITORS DOWNLOADS
AUTHORS AMONG
BOOKS TOP 1% 12.2%
DELIVERED TO AUTHORS AND EDITORS
MOST CITED SCIENTIST FROM TOP 500 UNIVERSITIES
151 COUNTRIES
Selection of our books indexed in the

Book Citation Index in Web of Science™
Core Collection (BKCI)
Chapter from the book Fractal Analysis - Applications in Health Sciences and Social
Sciences
Downloaded from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/fractal-analysis-applications-in-
health-sciences-and-social-sciences
Interested in publishing with InTechOpen?

Contact us at book.department@intechopen.com
Chapter 8
Characterization of Cultural Traits by Means of Fractal

Analysis
Sabrina Farías-Pelayo
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67893
Abstract
Archaeology, as a science, dares to explain how extinct societies functioned. As in all

sciences, knowledge is built through the classification of data. In this case, data appear
as fragments of objects that human groups have left behind. Traditionally, archaeologi-
cal classification systems use stylistic criteria to assign the belonging of fragments to a
territory, to a moment in time, and to a culture. The underlying idea is that changes in
the characteristics of objects respond to changes in cultural processes. Despite a long
tradition in the analysis of archaeological material, there is still a significant subjective
component in which the classification criteria should be. If the archaeologist uses one that
is too broad, then fragments with very diverse characteristics can be included in the same
group. Conversely, if the criterion is too narrow, fragments that are very similar to each
other, but not identical, will not be considered of the same type. Conclusions that depend
on the size of the tool used in the analysis do not seem to be very sound. Therefore,
the limits of traditional archaeological analysis have been reached. New perspectives are
required to move forward. In this chapter, it is proposed that social vestiges acquire frac-
tal properties by the repeated iteration of culturally transmitted rules embedded in their
production processes. Complex patterns emerge in a variety of cultural manifestations,
but are all related to the way in which cultural practices of different groups occupy space:
practices related to, for example, tool elaboration, symbolic representation or the choice
of the geographic location where they settle. Fractal properties are the reflection of these
cultural practices and the metrics that synthesizes the properties of each of the cultural
manifestations is its fractal dimension. The fractal signature is built as a distinctive set of
fractal dimensions of cultural traits of a social group. This is intended with the construc-
tion of the Xajay culture’s “fractal signature.” Xajay civilization flourished to the south
of the northern border of Mesoamerica from around 350 AD until its collapse in 900 AD.
Keywords: cultural patterns, archaeology, fractal dimension, fractal signature, Xajay,

characterization
© 2017 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
168 Fractal Analysis - Applications in Health Sciences and Social Sciences
1. Introduction
Archaeology is the science of fragments. Archaeologists excavate to obtain information from

fragments of cities, buildings, tools, pottery and a great diversity of objects that when put
together form complex patterns of cultural manifestations. The objective of archaeological
work is the classification of the fragments to assign them to a chronological period, to a certain
usage, and to a specific social group. In this process, fragments acquire meaning.
Traditional classifications are built on discrimination by region, by types of objects, of mate-
rial, of forms, etc. If the groupings are meaningful, the result will be the association of the
different objects to a social group and to a culture. However, in the analysis of a territory that
has been occupied by different cultures and which remains fit in more than one classifica-
tion, traditional methods quickly reach their limits and a different approach is necessary. The
hypothesis that guides our research is that a culture can be better characterized by means
of the fractal analysis of the objects it produced and has left behind for the archaeologists to
find and analyze. Supporting the hypothesis is the idea that the know-how that underlies the
production of every cultural manifestation is not acquired individually, but is part of a com-
plex social transmission system. Therefore, the fabrication of the distinctive paraphernalia of
a group implies the reiteration of social practices that result in patterns that can be identified
by fractal analysis.
2. The elusive Xajay
Our research uses artifacts from the Xajay culture to attempt its characterization by means of
fractal analysis. The Xajay culture flourished from 350 to 900 AD in a semi-desert region close
to the northern border of Mesoamerica in what is now central Mexico. The most important of
their ceremonial centers is Pahñu, located 180 km to the northwest of modern Mexico City. In
ancient times, the Mesoamerican border divided the nomadic (barbarian, hunter and forager)
groups to the north from the sedentary (civilized and agricultural) population to the south.
The frontier condition of the Xajay, as well as other of their characteristics, has challenged a
precise archaeological classification of this group. At times, they have been thought of as a
development associated to the northern expansion of the great city of Teotihuacan, whereas at
others they were considered as isolated groups that defended the entry to the central Mexican
plateau from the northern barbarians.
Among the problems that arose while trying to classify the Xajay is that their architecture has
decorative elements that are like those used at the moment in Monte Albán—located almost
500 km to the southeast—, but has other elements that are similar to those used by the Aztecs
more than 700 years later [1]. Another classification predicament is that the Xajay ceremonial
centers are contemporary to Teotihuacan and within its potential area of control; however,
the influence of the big city on their small neighbors is almost insignificant. For example, the
archaeological record of Teotihuacan-controlled sites always denotes the presence of artifacts
Characterization of Cultural Traits by Means of Fractal Analysis 169
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67893
knapped from green obsidian. The access to the sources of this volcanic glass was monopo-
lized by Teotihuacan for hundreds of years [2]. In contrast, the archaeological record of the
Xajay sites only yields black obsidian obtained from local sources. A final inconsistent clas-
sification topic that is worth mentioning refers to the widespread stone engraving tradition in
pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. Instead, the motifs of the Xajay petroglyphs are more like those
of the Bajío region, located to the west of the Xajay sites [3].
With this conflicting evidence, every attempt to classify Xajay remains with respect to a previ-
ously known culture ended in ambiguity. As more archaeological material was obtained and
analyzed, the prevailing confusion only increased. Also, classifications became so detailed
that they became useless.
Here is where we believe that fractal analysis can make a difference. We used fractal analysis
on some elements that had been previously used to attempt the characterization of the Xajay
with two basic underlying questions: how similar among themselves are the remains; and
how different are these remains with respect to those of other cultures?
3. The fractal nature of archaeological objects
The first thing that had to be done was to confirm the fractal nature of archaeological objects.
If the challenge was to prove the usefulness of the fractal dimension for archaeological anal-
ysis, then it was important to justify why archaeological objects have fractal properties. It
makes no sense to calculate the fractal dimension of something that is not fractal.
In mathematics, fractals are complex objects that show self-similarity at all scales resulting
from the repeated iteration of a simple rule. In nature, again because of the reiteration of a
simple rule, certain objects show self-similarity, but only on a limited number of scales due to
the limitations imposed by matter. It is said that these are statistical fractals [4]. We propose
that in the cultural domain, objects acquire statistical fractal properties due to the repetition of
a simple (cultural) rule. This can explain the emergence of complex patterns in cultural mani-
festations, in domestic aspects such as pottery, textiles, and even hair-dos, but also in more
social and aggregate phenomena such as urban and settlement patterns.
This definition of a cultural fractal fits perfectly well in archaeology. The simple rules that
are repeated to form cultural fractals are the traditions that are transmitted from one genera-
tion to another and manifest themselves in the specific way in which things are done within
a social group. For example, these traditions have to do with the sequence and strength of
gestures that result in knapping a projectile point from an obsidian core, the steps involved
in engraving blocks of tuff to obtain a certain symbol or glyph, or the way in which clay
is knead and shaped to form a characteristic vessel, etc. All these social practices, repeated
recursively, leave traces in the archaeological record and can be subject to fractal analysis. The
fractal properties of cultural manifestations are the direct consequence of cultural practices.
The metric that synthesizes the properties of each of the cultural manifestations is its fractal
dimension.
In brief, it can be said that the fractal dimension measures the way in which an image fills
the space that contains it. In a social domain, it is straightforward to think that two cultures
will use space in distinct ways; their cultural manifestations will occupy space differently.
Therefore, the fractal dimension of the objects they produce can be used to identify specific
cultural traits.
Then, there is the problem of how to detect the fractal nature of the objects from the images
that represent them, mostly because the fractal patterns are not always visible to the naked eye.
Box-counting is the most commonly used method for calculating fractal dimension from
images. Essentially, this method calculates the fractal dimension as the relation between the
number of squares (boxes) needed to cover an image and the size (scale) of the squares. If this
relation is stable when the size of the squares changes, then there is scale invariance, and it can
be said that the image fills the space that contains it in the same manner, with independence
of scale. In other words, there is also some sort of self-similarity. We can be confident then that
we are in the presence of an object with fractal properties, and that it makes sense to calculate
its fractal dimension.
4. Choice of tools
The first issue we had to address was the choice of a tool to calculate the fractal dimension of
the archaeological images. It is amazing that despite a relatively long history of fractal analy-
sis in archaeology1, there is very little discussion of the results of research and even less of the
methods employed. The literature we reviewed was of little help for deciding the software
to use for the calculation of fractal dimension. We had access to five open-source or freely
available programs2 and to our surprise, each one gave a very different result for the fractal
dimension of a same image using the same method (Box-counting).
Before going any further, it was necessary to clarify these differences and have certainty with
respect to what was being calculated by each of the programs. In the end, we identified the
main source of discrepancy in the way each program processed the images and converted
them into binary files which are the input needed to use the box-counting method. We found
other minor differences that derived from the way each program placed the grid of squares
to cover the images, and from the way the size of the squares is increased in each iteration of
the procedure3. By controlling the binary images that were used as input and by adjusting the
parameters of grid placement and square size, we could obtain the same result for the fractal
dimension of the same image calculated by each of the five programs.
1
The earliest work that we are aware of is [12].
2
We tested: (a) FROG (Fractal Researches on Geosciences) v1.0 developed by Jean-François Parrot of the Geography Insti-
tute at UNAM; (b) Fractalyse v2.4, developed at Université de Franche-Comté de Besançon; (c) fractal3, v3.4.7, developed
by the National Agriculture Research Organization of Japan; (d) HarFa, v DEMO 5.5.30 developed at the Brno University
of Technology, Czech Republic; and (e) ImageJ v1.46r developed by the US National Institutes of Health, and its plug-in
FracLac v2.5, developed by A. Karperian at Charles Sturt University of Australia.
3
For a complete description of the comparison of the five programs, see Ref. [20].
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67893
Having clarified the procedures of each of the programs, we decided to use FracLac for Imagej
because it allowed for a finer parametrization which gives better control over the process, it cal-
culates not only the fractal dimension but other indicators, such as lacunarity that would result
useful in our analysis, and finally because it was possible to batch process large sets of images.
A crucial lesson that can be drawn from this first step of the experiment is that software
should not be taken as a black-box that produces a magical number: the fractal dimension. If
there is not a discussion on methods, then the results can be very interesting, but will only be
relevant for isolated cases. It is important to produce results that can be comparable to others
so research can build on previous works.
5. Fractal dimensions of the Xajay culture
The first issue to define is what are the traits that can be measured and allow the characteriza-
tion of a culture by means of fractal analysis. Archaeological evidence suggested that at least
three distinctive cultural traits of the Xajay should be used: (a) the location in a specific land-
scape where the group built its ceremonial centers; (b) the stone engravings that can be found
throughout what has been interpreted as their sacred territory; and (c) the projectile points
included in offerings as part of their funerary practices.
5.1. Location
The study of location, landscape, and territory is common in archaeological research. They
are topics that have also been approached by fractal analysis. A rigorous paper on the inter-
vention, organization, and planning of space in pre-Hispanic times is that of Oleschko et
al. [5] who proposed to use fractal geometry to identify the urban master-plan of the city of
Teotihuacan. In their study, they analyzed satellite imagery and aerial photography of the
archaeological zone. It is worth noting that an important part of their effort was devoted to
verifying the fractal nature of what was represented in the images they analyzed. In particu-
lar, they proposed that the invariant fractal dimension that was obtained from images with
different scales was evidence of self-similarity. The results of their calculations for the prin-
cipal buildings of Teotihuacan as well as for the archaeological site as a whole gave a fractal
dimension of 1.89 with minor variations. This outcome was the same in satellite imagery as
well as in aerial photographs with scales of 1:30,000 and 1:5000. With this, the authors sustain
their claim that the main buildings of Teotihuacan have fractal properties. Even more, they
propose that, given the visual similarity of the plan of the Ciudadela complex with the math-
ematical fractal known as the Sierpinski Carpet—which coincidently has a fractal dimension
of 1.89—it was very possible that the urbanists and architects of Teotihuacan had in mind
schemas and parameters like those that give place to the mathematical fractal.
Other examples are [6, 7] that propose a relation between the intra-site settlement pattern with
kinship and between the regional distribution of sites with warfare. The argument focuses
on the rank-size distribution observed in archaeological materials and in the settlement pat-
terns to sustain their fractal properties; however, they also mention that fractal dimension
can be calculated from images. It is interesting that the authors warn explicitly that neither
everything is fractal nor all dynamics are nonlinear, but that many archaeological patterns are
fractal and should be described and analyzed properly.
Landscape has also been a topic in the analysis of the Xajay. The location where this group
built all their ceremonial centers is peculiar. The eruption of a huge caldera about 4 million
years ago formed vast tuff plains that have since suffered erosion and given place to plateaus
or mesas that end abruptly on their northern side. It is precisely on the edge or these mesas
that the Xajay decided to place their ceremonial centers. Because of this characteristic, the
Xajay were once named the Mesas Culture [8].
We built on the assumption that if the location of the sites is peculiar, then it should have a
specific fractal dimension and of course, it should be different from that of other locations.
We used topography as represented by contour lines as a proxy for location to measure its
fractal dimension. Contour lines are abstractions that represent points in a map with the same
altitude. The more rugged the terrain, contour lines will be closer to each other and have
more twists and bends: they will fill the map space in a more complete way. Consequently,
it should be expected that the fractal dimension of a topographical map of a mountainous
landscape should be greater than that of a flat location.
To prove this hypothesis, topographical maps were obtained for the location of the Xajay
ceremonial centers and eight other archaeological sites in Mexico: Teotihuacan, Cantona,
Cacaxtla, Xochicalco, Teotenango, Tula, Tenayuca, and Cerro de la Cruz. However, we were
not only interested in quantifying the ruggedness of the terrain but also in sustaining that
the precise location of the archaeological sites, at least for the Xajay, had a cultural meaning.
Therefore, we expected that the fractal dimension of the topography of the location of the
Xajay ceremonial centers would be like that of Cerro de la Cruz with whom, it is known [9],
they share cultural traits—among others the placement of sites on edges of cliffs.
Contour lines were extracted from the digital elevation models provided online by the
Mexican Institute of Geography (INEGI). The resolution of the digital elevation model files is
15 m per pixel and differences in altitude represented by each contour line is 10 m. The gener-
ated maps, covering approximately 10 × 15 km in a scale of 1:50,000 were stored in TIFF files
of 3500 × 2480 pixels and are shown in Table 1.
Because different images can have very similar fractal dimensions, lacunarity was also cal-
culated to discriminate more effectively between images. Lacunarity was proposed by
Mandelbrot [10] as a complementary measure to fractal dimension. If the fractal dimension
measures the way an image fills the space that contains it, lacunarity measures the holes or the
lumpiness of the image, the way in which it does not fill space.
In Figure 1, the fractal dimensions and lacunarities of the topographical maps of the nine
archaeological sites are plotted.
Even if the limited number of points in the sample do not allow for statistically significant
inferences, it is relevant that the points representing the values of maps of the Xajay ceremo-
nial centers and of Cerro de la Cruz are proximate to each other, which corresponds to what
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67893
Xajay Cerro de la Cruz Teotihuacan
Cantona Cacaxtla Xochicalco
Tula Teotenango Tenayuca
Table 1. Topographical maps of archaeological sites.
was expected because of the shared cultural traits. In this case, topography has a cultural
meaning. The other sites have topographies whose combination of fractal dimension and lac-
unarity are quite separate from the Xajay; hence, we can conclude that they do not share with
them their characteristic cultural placement on the edge of cliffs.
These results confirm that the particularity of the location of the Xajay ceremonial centers
is more than something perceptual: it has been measured. The placement of the sites on the
edges of cliffs is now associated to specific values of fractal dimension and lacunarity of their
topographies. In this way, it can be used to distinguish objectively between preferences of
ancient peoples for the building of their sites.
5.2. Petroglyphs
The existence of petroglyphs in and around the ceremonial centers is another trait that has
been mentioned as characteristic of the Xajay culture [8]. There are almost 200 petroglyphs
registered in the five Xajay ceremonial centers4, being Zidada the one where they have been
found more abundantly. A selection of 23 images of petroglyphs from the survey records
of Zidada was prepared for measuring their fractal dimension. The petroglyph motif was
4
Apart from Pahñu, the main ceremonial center, the Xajay built Zidada, Taxangú, Cerrito, and Zethé, all of them on the
northern edge of cliffs. The maximum distance between the sites (Zidada to the west and Zethé to the east) is less than 8 km.
Figure 1. Fractal dimension and lacunarity of the location of archaeological sites.
retraced as a black line on the digitized original survey photographs. Then, the background
photograph was erased and the file was converted to a binary format. Table 2 illustrates this
process.
The mean fractal dimension of the sample of 23 images is 1.1234 with a standard deviation
of 0.0688, denoting a relatively compact grouping. This can be indicative that petroglyphs in
and around the Xajay ceremonial centers are specific of this culture. The values of the fractal
dimension of the Zidada petroglyphs were compared to those of three other pre-Hispanic
petroglyphs from the Xajay sites of Pahñu and Taxangú and to that of a modern stone carv-
ing found near Zidada. Assuming normality in the distribution, it can be sustained that there
is more than 95% probability that the pre-Hispanic petroglyphs belong to the same set as
the ones from Zidada. With the same probability, we can conclude that the modern petro-
glyph has a motif that does not belong to the Xajay culture. Another comparison was made
Original survey photograph Retraced motif Binary image
Zidada 11
Table 2. Example of the extraction of petroglyph motif.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67893
with two petroglyphs that functioned as astronomical markers from the site of Xihuingo [11],
contemporary to Pahñu, but with a strong influence from Teotihuacan. Not surprisingly, the
fractal dimension of these petroglyphs fell outside of the 95% confidence interval for the Xajay
motifs.
These results support and give a numerical expression to the idea that the Xajay elaborated a
specific type of petroglyphs in association with their ceremonial sites. Xajay petroglyphs are
similar and this is one of their characteristic cultural traits.
5.3. Projectile points
Orton and Grace, two British archaeologists, made team with two computer specialists and
conducted a pioneer research on the fractal properties of archaeological lithic material [12].
The authors confirmed their intuition that the fractal dimension would change depending on
the different erosive processes that affected flint flakes, but could not meet their objective of
determining the use that had been given to the artifacts by the differences in the fractal dimen-
sion of the images of microware types. Nonetheless, they set the ground for further research
based on fractal analysis in archaeology.
During excavations at the Xajay site of Pahñu, a significant quantity of archaeological mate-
rial was recovered. Of special interest was the material of an offering placed in a cache under
the northwest corner of the main pyramid around 500 AD. Among the findings, archaeolo-
gist recovered a great diversity of projectile points, of different forms and made of different
materials. These points were used to explore if, despite the diversity, some specific Xajay trait
could be revealed through the fractal analysis of their images.
As with the petroglyphs, the images of the points had to be prepared for their processing.
The silhouette or edge of the images of the dorsal side of 54 projectile points were extracted
from the original digitized photographs and saved in a binary format. Table 3 illustrates the
process.
Fractal dimension and lacunarity were calculated for the 54 images of projectile points. In
both calculations, the dispersion of values is relatively small, which can indicate a clustering
of the points in terms of these characteristics.
Plotting fractal dimension against lacunarity of the images reveals what could be two groups
within the Xajay projectile points. A first group formed by the points whose image has a
fractal dimension less than 1.09, and the second group has fractal dimensions greater than
this value.
To find an explanation for this segmentation, the data were compared to the information
contained in the lithic database of the excavation project. The grouping of the data could be
explained by differences in the material out of which the points were knapped. The points
with a fractal dimension less than 1.09 were made from obsidian with two exceptions. The
only point made from basalt belongs to this group, and there is one made from flint that
requires a more detailed analysis to determine why it has such a low fractal dimension com-
pared to the other flint points. The second group of points with a fractal dimension greater
Original image
Binary image
Table 3. Example of the extraction of the silhouette of a point.
than 1.09 comprises 20 points made from flint, 5 from chalcedony, 1 from calcite, 1 from rhyo-
lite, and 1 from obsidian. Figure 2 shows the segmentation of the points with respect to their
knapping material.
The mean fractal dimensions of these two groups of points resulted different with a confi-
dence interval of more than 99%. Also, and this is not clearly visible to the naked eye, the
mean lacunarity of the two groups is likewise different. It follows that, as a complementary
measure, lacunarity is also useful to distinguish between these two groups5.
This result could lead us to think that fractal dimensions and lacunarity are simply distin-
guishing some physical attributes of the raw material, and not a cultural practice, which,
in the last instance, is the relevant criterion to characterize a human group. However, if the
physical properties are explaining the clustering of fractal dimensions and lacunarities, then
as many groups as different raw materials would be discernible, and this is not the case.
To further explore if the segmentation of fractal dimensions was due to the physical prop-
erties of the raw material, the Xajay collection was compared to the images of other points
obtained from the Internet. The criteria for selecting the points were that they should not be
very different in form than the Xajay so the differences could not be explained by this reason.
For contrasting, four very distinct Clovis points were also chosen, which in principle should
have a very different fractal dimension than the Xajay points. Most of the images were taken
from the online catalogue of the American Southwest Virtual Museum [13]. The comparative
set of images was composed of 15 points from Arizona, of which 2 were obsidian, 4 Clovis
5
The value of Student’s t-statistic for the independent sample equality of means test for fractal dimensions was 11.093,
with 52 degrees of freedom. The two-tailed confidence interval is greater than 99%. For lacunarities, Student’s t-statistic
was 5.320 with the same degrees of freedom and confidence interval as for fractal dimensions.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67893
Figure 2. Fractal dimension and lacunarity of Xajay projectile points.
points from several locations in the United States, 1 point from Kansas, and 1 obsidian point
from an unknown provenance in the southwest of the United States. An obsidian point from
Teotihuacan and a flint point from Belize were also included in this set. Figure 3 plots the
fractal dimension and lacunarity of the ensemble of points.
The first thing that is worth noting is that the four Clovis points clearly form a distinct group
with the lowest fractal dimensions of all. The number of observations is very small, and
statistically significant inferences cannot be made, but once again, the potential of fractal
Figure 3. Fractal dimension and lacunarity of projectile points.

dimensions to distinguish among groups of objects is manifest. The Clovis points are visibly
not made from obsidian but probably from a sedimentary material. The fact that their frac-
tal dimensions are smaller than those calculated for the Xajay points in general and much
smaller than those of the points made from sedimentary material gives some weight to the
argument that the fractal dimension is not measuring the physical attributes of the artifacts.
As for the set of points from the American Southwest and the other isolated points, the fractal
dimensions of those knapped from obsidian are all in the range of the Xajay points made from
that material. Also, fractal dimensions of the points made from other material are distributed
in the whole range of values of the Xajay points, independently of the raw material used in
their manufacture. Once again, there is an indication that fractal dimensions are measuring
something more than the simple attributes of raw materials.
Even if the differences in fractal dimensions were related to the raw material, it could be
argued that it is due to the precise gestures involved in working with them, and this is cul-
tural. Artifacts are manufactured from each raw material through a carefully thought out
sequence of interrelated actions. The knowledge behind this sequence is transmitted within
each human group.
6. The fractal signature
Up to this point of the research, we have obtained a handful of fractal dimensions, each one
of them saying something with respect to a trait of the Xajay culture. The next step was to
integrate them into a more synthetic measure that could represent the ensemble of the Xajay
culture. A characteristic required of this synthetic measure was that it distinguishes the Xajay
from any culture with whom it was compared. The fractal signature is a measure that com-
plies with this condition.
Given the ambiguity with which the concepts of fractal dimension and fractal signature are
used in literature, their distinction is worth a brief discussion. The lack of precision in the
use of these terms is not exclusive of fractal archaeological research. At times, the distinction
is solved by choosing one, or the other, or simply by making them interchangeable. See, for
example, Refs. [14, 15].
It is amazing that the most precise definitions of fractal signature occur in the extremes of
the observation spectrum. At a macro level, in astronomy, near galaxies are distinguished by
the fractal dimension of their images at different resolutions [16]. With a method, similar to
box-counting, the area of a galaxy in an image is calculated by counting the non-black pixels.
The authors observed that the area of the galaxies change when the resolution of the image
changes. For them, the fractal signature is the relation between the area of a galaxy calculated
from different images and the resolution of the images.
In the opposite extreme of the spectrum, there are several medical science papers that use the
fractal signature for the analysis of the microscopic structure of bone tissue to detect anoma-
lies. The definition used in some of these papers is like the one used in the study of galaxies.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67893
The fractal signature is the variability of fractal dimension calculated from images with a
different resolution: “a fractal signature […] is simply the estimated fractal dimension as a
function of scale” [17].
The problem faced by astronomers and physicians is that the fractal dimension of objects
represented in the images they were using (galaxies or microscopic structure of tissue) varied
as a function of the resolution of the image. In other words, the fractal dimension of an object
changed depending on the “magnification” with which the image had been captured. There
was thus a need for a method permitting their comparison, independently of the capture
conditions.
The above-mentioned works are based on the study of Peleg et al. [18], who used mathemati-
cal morphology procedures to solve a general problem arising from the characterization of
textures. The sharpness of digital images changes with their resolution, which in principle
conflicts with the properties of fractal objects that should be self-similar independently of
scale. The fractal signature was defined to measure the degree of detail or sharpness that is
lost when the resolution of the image is reduced. “The magnitude of the fractal signature
S(ε) relates to the amount of detail that is lost when the size of the measuring yardstick
passes ε.” [18] Note that ε refers to the measurement scale or to the resolution of the image.
Another way of understanding this would be that the fractal signature measures the change
in the fractal dimension of objects calculated from images that represent different “levels of
observation.”
The usefulness of fractal signatures in research that propose to measure the detail of “texture”
of tissues or galaxies from microscopic or telescopic observations is clear. In social sciences,
and particularly in the research that we present, the analysis of “texture” of cultural remains
is not only done through successive magnifications, but the different “levels of observation”
imply seeing the archaeological context from diverse domains, opening the field of vision
toward object of varied nature.
We propose that the concept of fractal signature in archaeology can be recovered if it is con-
sidered as the measure of change in fractal dimension of the different aspects of material cul-
ture. In this case, fractal dimension would not change only because of the resolution of images
of a single object, but because the observations would include distinct aspects of culture. The
fractal signature would not be a single number, but a set of numbers each one measuring the
fractal dimension of a particularity of the archaeological context. Under the hypothesis that
archaeological objects have fractal properties due to the repeated iteration of cultural rules,
it is reasonable to assume that those that govern the fabrication of pottery are different than
those applied to architecture and urbanism, and also different than those present in sculp-
ture, stone engraving or any other activity that leaves traces in the archaeological context.
Therefore, each aspect or element of a social group has a specific fractal dimension, and the
ensemble of these dimensions is what constitutes their fractal signature.
The obvious question that arises is how many aspects of a culture should be observed to
have an adequate characterization. In other words, how many elements should be mea-
sured to have an effective fractal signature. Fractal dimension can be used to measure
as many aspects of a culture as is required to build a fractal signature that character-

izes adequately a human group. In principle, the inclusion of additional traits would be
never ending; the number of dimensions of the cultural space would increase incessantly.
Nonetheless, the same result should be expected: each group will have a unique location
in that space. The way this is understood is related to the way in which groups, societies
or cultures are looked at. Each one has endless components, their difference is not in the
similarity or lack of the components, but in the way in which these interact and combine.
In other words, what is important is to understand how the components form a dynamic
system with transformation rules of its own. Considering this, we propose that the fractal
signature is the representation of the systemic dynamics of the group in the n-dimensional
space of culture.
In what follows we will present some ideas of how a prototype of the Xajay fractal signature
could begin to be assembled from the set of fractal dimensions of the attributes that were
measured. To facilitate presentation, the fractal signature will consider only the mean fractal
dimensions of the topography of the placement of the sites, of the petroglyph motifs and of
the silhouettes of the projectile points, as shown in Table 4.
Likewise, it can be represented in a vector notation in the three-dimensional cultural space

defined by topography × petroglyphs × points.
 ⎯
 → = [ 1.7973,  1.1243,  1.0882 ]
    (1)
 
XajayFS
This combination of fractal dimensions occupies a unique position in this space and is there-
fore proposed that the fractal signature expressed in this manner is a measurement of the
specificity of the Xajay.
The usefulness of the fractal signature to make distinctions between groups would be given
by the fact that the measurements of the attributes of the distinct groups would occupy dif-
ferent positions in this space.
To illustrate this, fractal dimensions of the three domains that form the prototypical cultural
space were obtained for Teotihuacan and Cantona, enabling the comparison with the Xajay.
This is presented in Table 5.
A graphical representation of these fractal signatures in the three-dimensional cultural space

is shown in Figure 4.
The graph clearly shows how each cultural group occupies a unique position in the space
determined by the fractal dimensions of their attributes.
Topography Petroglyphs Projectile points

1.7973 1.1243 1.0882
Table 4. Prototype of the Xajay fractal signature.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67893
Topography Petroglyphs Projectile points

Xajay 1.7973 1.1243 1.0882
Teotihuacan 1.7339 1.5067 1.0535
Cantona 1.7181 1.1819 1.0402
Table 5. Three attribute fractal signature of the Xajay, Teotihuacan, and Cantona.
Figure 4. Fractal signature of the Xajay, Teotihuacan, and Cantona.
7. Conclusions
The driving purpose of our research was to assign quantitative measures to the classifications
made by archaeologists in their day-to-day work. Classification of objects and cultural traits are
made from the knowledge and experience acquired through research and are always biased in
some way and have a certain dose of ambiguity. It is not our intention to demerit archaeologists.
Their work has achieved the non-easy task of giving form to the history of social transformations.
Moreover, when societies under study do not leave written records, research becomes even harder
and the only thing archaeologists can get a grasp on to reconstruct history from are fragments of
objects. With these fragments, the functioning of societies and the relations between its elements
have to be recreated. To reduce subjectiveness in archaeological work, we have proposed a model
to characterize different cultures by means of their fractal dimensions. The bet is that, indepen-
dently of how many elements (fractal dimensions) are considered, there will never be two groups
that occupy the same location in the n-dimensional space of culture, given that each point in this
space (each fractal signature) is the representation of one and only one social group.
Characterization of social groups by means of fractal analysis opens the door to a great variety of
future research. For example, the configuration of the territory occupied in pre-Hispanic times
can be represented by a cloud of points in cultural space, each one associated to a social group.
The points of this cloud could get closer or move away from each other, giving place in certain
moments to clusters of cultural significance. One of these clusters is probably Mesoamerica.
Another line of research, maybe much more ambitious, is related to the discovery of the “gen-
erators” of the fractal properties of cultural objects, namely the simple rules whose repeti-
tion produces fractal patterns. These are the lines developed in Ron Eglash’s classic work on
African fractals [19]. In this chapter, we have shown the potential of the fractal signature to
characterize the Xajay from the fractal properties of different aspects of their culture, but there
was no attempt to discover the cultural rules that produced them. If such rules could be deter-
mined, if their repetition could be identified as processes, an important step would be taken in
the understanding of the interactions of the different components of the Xajay material culture.
Author details
Sabrina Farías-Pelayo
Address all correspondence to: sabrinafariasp@gmail.com
National School of Anthropology and History, Mexico City, Mexico
References
[1] Sandoval G. Un espacio autosimilar. El altépetl, el centro ceremonial y la ofrenda [Tesis de

Licenciatura en Arqueología]. Mexico: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia; 2009.
[2] Pastrana A., Domínguez S. Cambios en la estrategia de la explotación de la obsidiana de
Pachuca: Teotihuacan, Tula y la triple alianza. Ancient Mesoamerica. 2009;20–1:129–148.
[3] Viramontes CA. La pintura rupestre como indicador territorial. Nómadas y sedentar-
ios en la marca fronteriza del río San Juan, Querétaro. In: Viramontes Anzures C. and
Crespo Oviedo A. M., editors. Expresión y memoria. Pintura rupestre y petrograbado en
las sociedades del norte de México. Mexico: INAH; 1999.
[4] Mandelbrot B. How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional
dimension. Science. 1967;156(3775):636–638.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/67893
[5] Oleschko K, Brambila R., Brambila F, Parrot J-F, López P. Fractal analysis of teotihuacan,
Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2000;27:1007–1016.
[6] Brown CT, Witschey WR. The fractal geometry of ancient Maya settlement. Journal of
Archaeological Science. 2003;30:1619–1632.
[7] Brown CT, Witschey WR, Leibovitch LS. The broken past: Fractals in archaeology.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 2005;12(1):37–78.
[8] J. Cedeño Nicolás. Cosmología y arquitectura. El caso de la Cultura de las Mesas. Dimensión
Antropológica. 1998;12:7–48.
[9] Farías PMS. Identificación de la cultura de las mesas o Xajay [Tesis de Maestría en
Arqueología]. Mexico: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia; 2010.
[10] Mandelbrot B. The Fractal Geometry of Nature (Updated and augmented edition).
New York: W.H. Freeman and Company; 1983.
[11] Galindo TJ, Wallrath BM, Rangel RA. Marcadores punteados como manifestación de
la ideología teotihuacana respecto al cielo: el caso de Xihuingo. In Ideología y política
a través de materiales, imágenes y símbolos. Memoria de la Primera Mesa Redonda de
Teotihuacan. México: UNAM-INAH; 2002. pp. 255–271.
[12] Rees D, Wilkinson G, Orton C, Grace R. Fractal analysis of digital images of flint
microwear. In: Rahtz S., editor. Computer and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology.
Oxford: BAR; 1988. pp. 177–183.
[13] American Southwest Virtual Museum [Internet]. Available from: http://swvirtualmu-
seum.nau.edu/wp/index.php/artifacts/projectile-points/ [Accessed July 24, 2015].
[14] Malamou A, Pandis C, Frangos P, Stefaneas P, Karakasiliotis A, Kodokostas D. Application
of the modified fractal signature method for terrain classification from synthetic aper-
ture radar images. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika. 2014;20(6):118–121.
[15] Lara GAP. Las firmas fractales en las manifestaciones rupestres de Valle del Mezquital,
Hidalgo, México [Tesis Doctorado en Arqueología]. Mexico: Escuela Nacional de Antro
pología e Historia; 2014.
[16] Lekshmi S, Revathy K, Prabhakaran NS. Galaxy classification using fractal signature.
Astronomy & Astrophysics. 2003;405:1163–1167.
[17] Lynch J, Hawkes D, Buckland-Wright J. Analysis of texture in macroradiographs of
osteoarthritic knees using the fractal signature. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 1991;36
(6):709–722.
[18] Peleg S, Naor J, Hartley R, Avnir D. Multiple resolution texture analysis and classifi-
cation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 1984;PAMI-6
(4):518–523.
[19] Eglash R. African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press; 1999.
[20] Farías PS. La cultura Xajay. Los otomíes al sur de la frontera norte de Mesoamérica [Tesis
de Doctorado], Mexico: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia; 2015.
The Number of Cultural Traits Is Correlated with Female
Group Size but Not with Male Group Size in Chimpanzee
Communities
Johan Lind*, Patrik Lindenfors
Centre for the Study of Cultural Evolution & Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
What determines the number of cultural traits present in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) communities is poorly understood.
In humans, theoretical models suggest that the frequency of cultural traits can be predicted by population size. In
chimpanzees, however, females seem to have a particularly important role as cultural carriers. Female chimpanzees use
tools more frequently than males. They also spend more time with their young, skewing the infants’ potential for social
learning towards their mothers. In Gombe, termite fishing has been shown to be transmitted from mother to offspring.
Lastly, it is female chimpanzees that transfer between communities and thus have the possibility of bringing in novel
cultural traits from other communities. From these observations we predicted that females are more important cultural
carriers than males. Here we show that the reported number of cultural traits in chimpanzee communities correlates with
the number of females in chimpanzee communities, but not with the number of males. Hence, our results suggest that
females are the carriers of chimpanzee culture.
Citation: Lind J, Lindenfors P (2010) The Number of Cultural Traits Is Correlated with Female Group Size but Not with Male Group Size in Chimpanzee
Communities. PLoS ONE 5(3): e9241. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009241
Editor: Michael D. Petraglia, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Received December 7, 2009; Accepted January 18, 2010; Published March 24, 2010
Copyright: ß 2010 Lind, Lindenfors. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This study was funded through a research grant from the Swedish Research Council (PL) and it was also supported by the CULTAPTATION project
(European Commission contract FP6-2004-NEST-PATH-043434). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: johan.lind@zoologi.su.se
Introduction important part of chimpanzee culture is mainly exhibited by

females. Third, in a detailed study of how chimpanzees in Gombe
Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) cultures exhibit considerable learn to fish for termites it was found that the time the mother
variation between communities [1]. Some of the variation in spent termite-fishing was positively correlated to the offspring’s
culture among apes can be explained by local ecological conditions acquisition of critical elements of the skill [12]. Since mothers
and the diffusion and differentiation of cultural traits between spend more time with their offspring in general, the same pattern
communities [2–5]. We here want to propose another important can reasonably be expected also for other traits. Fourth, it is the
correlate of chimpanzee culture: female group size. females that transfer between communities in chimpanzees, not
Cultural traits are carried by individuals and inherited through the males [9]. Thus, traits learnt by males stay within the
social learning. Thus, the number of cultural traits that can exist in community, while traits learnt by females can be transferred to
a population depends on the number of individuals that are other communities. Even if only a sub-section of females’ cultural
available to learn from. The diversity of cultural traits present in repertoires are unique to each particular female, the diversity of
human populations can be theoretically predicted to increase with cultural traits can be predicted to be larger among females than
community size [6–7]. This relationship potentially explains the among males.
geographic variation in the timing of the first appearance of Because females express and transmit more culture than males,
modern behaviour, as manifested through advanced human and because females transfer between communities bringing with
culture, during the Pleistocene without invoking increased them their cultural knowledge, the number of cultural traits
cognitive capacity [7]. Here we test if the relationship between present in any given chimpanzee community should depend on
cultural diversity and community size holds true also for the number of females in that community. Thus, we hypothesize
chimpanzees. that the number of cultural traits in chimpanzee communities
However, there are four key reasons for why adult females can should correlate with the average number of females in
be suspected to be of particular importance for cultural chimpanzee communities, but not with the average number of
transmission in chimpanzees. First, it can be predicted that young males.
chimpanzees learn more from their mothers than from any other
individual in the community since young chimpanzees depend on Results
their mothers up to eight years whereas male involvement is scarce
[8–9]. Second, tool use is central in chimpanzee culture and Since variation in research effort potentially can bias the
females use tools more frequently than males [8,10–11]. Hence, an diversity of cultural traits reported in different communities, we
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 March 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 3 | e9241

Culture and Female Group Size
tested if the length of each long-term project affected the reported

number of cultural traits (we used the following start dates for the
six different projects: Bossou: 1976, Taı̈: 1979, Gombe: 1960,
Mahale: 1965, Kibale: 1987, Budongo: 1990). There was no
correlation between the length of the studies and the number of
reported cultural traits (rs = 0.450, p = 0.312, n = 6) so we suspect
no such bias.
To ascertain the independence of the cultural and community
data we estimated l, a statistic that varies between 0 (phylogenetic
independence) and 1 (species’ traits covary in direct proportion to
their shared evolutionary history) [13]. This parameter did not
differ significantly from 0.0 in any test (p.0.4 for all parameters)
indicating no presence of a phylogenetic signal in our data (but see
5). Henceforth we therefore only report the results of non-
phylogenetic tests.
We found a significant correlation between the number of
females in chimpanzee communities and the reported number of
cultural traits (rs = 0.873, p = 0.010, n = 7) (Fig. 1). Interestingly,
we found no such correlation between reported number of cultural Figure 1. The relationship between female group size and the
traits and male group size (rs = 0.018, p = 0.969, n = 7), and number of cultural traits reported for seven different chim-
panzee communities.
accordingly only an indication of a correlation with total
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009241.g001
community size (rs = 0.727, p = 0.064, n = 7).
losing an important possibility of understanding cultural evolution
Discussion in our closest living relative.
The correlation between female group size and the reported
number of cultural traits indicates that chimpanzee cultural Materials and Methods
carrying capacity depends on the number of females in
We used data on culture [1] and community size [21] from
chimpanzee communities. This implies that females are critical
seven communities of wild chimpanzees from different localities.
in chimpanzees for transmitting cultural traits and maintaining
To avoid bias, we only used behaviour patterns that occurred
cultural diversity. The reported pattern may be explained by the
habitually or customarily in these communities [3]. We also
fact that females transfer between communities, bringing with
excluded behaviours that are non-informative; either because they
them novel cultural traits and consequently increasing the cultural
occur in all locations or their absence can be explained by local
diversity of the community as a whole.
ecological conditions. Hence, for this analysis we have used all
Vast differences exist between the community sizes of humans informative data available thereby avoiding ambiguities. For full
living in modern societies and chimpanzees, so it may be tempting details and explanations see table 1 in Whiten et al. 19991. Two
to infer that the difference in cultural evolution between humans estimates of group composition were available for the Gombe site
and chimpanzees depends on differences in community size. [21], whereof we chose the newer as this more closely matched the
However, early hominids lived at much lower population densities cultural data.
than contemporary humans and still, as inferred from the We used a phylogeny of chimpanzee communities of Lycett et
archaeological record [14], exhibited more culture than chimpan- al. [4] to analyse whether the number of cultural traits and average
zees [7]. For example, the presence and diversity of early Oldowan community sizes showed evidence of phylogenetic signal [13,22].
stone tools, dating as far back as more than 2 000 000 years, imply Note that this phylogeny was made using the same cultural data
a far more complex and diverse culture than what is observed in that we use in our analyses. Thus, by utilizing this phylogeny we
chimpanzees [15]. The difference between humans and chimpan- maximally slanted the tests in favour of finding a phylogenetic
zees therefore most probably depends on other traits rather than signal. To test for the presence of a phylogenetic signal, we
demography. estimated l using maximum likelihood [13] in the package APE
In humans, culture can grow exponentially as innovation rates [23] in the statistical software R [24]. Non-parametric Spearman
depend on the number of cultural traits already present [16]. The rank correlations were used for all non-phylogenetic tests because
lack of a similar exponential growth of chimpanzee culture of the unequal distribution of the data, and all p-values are
(inferred from the fact that they do not possess a large amount of two-tailed.
culture at present1) might reflect that chimpanzees do not have the
mental capacity necessary for making use of established cultural
Acknowledgments
traits when innovating novel traits. This merits further studies
of the underlying processes of chimpanzee cultural evolution We thank Magnus Enquist and two anonymous reviewers for helpful
[14,16–19]. comments on the manuscript.
As chimpanzee communities continue to dwindle in Africa [20],
more diversity is at stake than biodiversity. If ever lower numbers Author Contributions
of chimpanzees results in the transmission of a reduced number of Conceived and designed the experiments: JL. Analyzed the data: JL PL.
cultural traits over generations and between communities, we risk Wrote the paper: JL PL.
References
1. Whiten A, Goodall J, McGrew WC, Nishida T, Reynolds V, et al. (1999) 2. Whiten A, Goodall J, McGrew WC, Nishida T, Reynolds V, et al. (2001)
Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature 399: 682–685. Charting cultural variation in chimpanzees. Behaviour 138: 1481–1516.

Culture and Female Group Size
3. van Schaik CP, Ancrenaz M, Borgen G, Galdikas B, Knott CD, et al. (2003) 14. McBrearty S, Brooks A (2000) The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation
Orangutan cultures and the evolution of material culture. Science 299: 102–105. of the origin of modern human behavior. J Hum Evol 39: 453–563.
4. Lycett SJ, Collard M, McGrew WC (2007) Phylogenetic analyses of behavior 15. Domı́nguez-Rodrigo M, Rayne Pickering T, Semaw S, Rogers MJ (2005)
support existence of culture among wild chimpanzees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA Cutmarked bones from Pliocene archaeological sites at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia:
45: 17588–17592. implications for the function of the world’s oldest stone tools. J Hum Evol 48:
5. Lycett SJ, Collard M, McGrew WC (2009) Cladistic analyses of behavioural 109–121.
variation in wild Pan troglodytes: exploring the chimpanzee culture hypothesis. 16. Enquist M, Ghirlanda S, Jarrick A, Wachtmeister C-A (2008) Why does human
J Hum Evol 57: 337–349. culture increase exponentially? Theor Popul Biol 74: 46–55.
6. Strimling P, Sjöstrand J, Enquist M, Eriksson K (2009) Accumulation of 17. Hrubesch C, Preuschoft S, van Schaik C (2008) Skill mastery inhibits adoption of
independent cultural traits. Theor Popul Biol 76: 77–83. observed alternative solutions among chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Anim Cogn
7. Powell A, Shennan S, Thomas MG (2009) Late Pleistocene demography and the 12: 209–216.
appearance of modern human behavior. Science 324: 1298–1301. 18. Marshall-Pescini S, Whiten A (2008) Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and the
8. Boesch C, Boesch H (1990) Tool use and tool making in wild chimpanzees. Folia question of cumulative culture: an experimental approach. Anim Cogn 11:
Primatol 54: 86–99. 449–456.
9. Nishida T, Hiraiwa-Hasegawa M (1987) Chimpanzees and bonobos: cooper- 19. Whiten A, McGuigan N, Marhsall-Pescini S, Hopper LM (2009) Emulation,
ative relationships among males. In: Smuts BB, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM, imitation, overimitation and the scope of culture for child and chimpanzee. Phil
Wrangham RW, Struhsaker TT, eds. Primate Societies. Chicago: University of Trans R Soc 364: 2417–2428.
Chicago Press. pp 165–177. 20. IUCN 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1.
10. Hannah AC, McGrew WC (1987) Chimpanzees using stones to crack open oil 21. Wrangham RW (2000) Why are male chimpanzees more gregarious than
palm nuts in Liberia. Primates 28: 31–46. mothers? A scramble competition hypothesis. In: Kappeler PM, ed. Primate
11. McGrew WC (1979) Evolutionary implications of sex differences in chimpanzee Males: Causes and Consequences of Variation in Group Composition
predation and tool use. In: Hamburg DA, McCown ER, eds. Menlo ParkCA: Cambridge Univ. Press. pp 248–258.
The Great Apes Benjamin/Cummings. pp 440–463. 22. Pagel M (1999) Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature
12. Lonsdorf EV 2006 What is the role of mothers in the acquisition of termite- 401: 877–884.
fishing behaviors in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii)? Anim Cogn 9: 23. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and
36–46. evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20: 289–290.
13. Freckleton RP, Harvey PH, Pagel M (2002) Phylogenetic dependence and 24. R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for
ecological data: a test and review of evidence. Am Nat 160: 716–726. statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION
2016, VOL. 11, NO. 14, 6635-6650
OPEN ACCESS
Evaluation of The Cross-Cultural Traits Influence on The

Behavior of Russian and Chinese Students on The
Higher Education Products Market
Irina M. Romanovaa, Elena V. Noskovaa,

Anastasiya N. Trotsenkoa
aFar Eastern Federal University, RUSSIA
ABSTRACT
Development of academic mobility of students from different countries requires
evaluating the influence of their cultural traits on the behavior on the educational
products market. The subject of present study is the development of methodic approach
towards evaluating the cross-cultural traits influence on students’ behavior on the higher
education products market. Within the study we developed a model of culture, which
reflects the list of cultural values and characteristics of material and institutional values
adapted for the educational products market of the universities. We propose a method of
constructing a matrix of cross-cultural analysis of the elements, which create the model
of culture in the consumers from a certain culture and behavioral traits of students on the
higher education market. The developed methodical approach was evaluated on Chinese
and Russian students. The results of the study can be used for developing measures for
increasing the attractiveness of Russian universities for Chinese consumers.
KEYWORDS ARTICLE HISTORY

cross-culture, model of culture, students’ behavior, Received 09 June 2016
educational products market . Revised 19 July 2016
Accepted 22 July 2016
1. Introduction
Economics development on the current stage should be based on improving the
conditions for reproducing human assets and should occur with simultaneous
education modernization as a significant condition of high-quality preparation of
working resources, which have to provide proportional development of economics.
Current state of the universities requires the solution of a number of problems in
order to increase their efficiency and competitiveness.
In the conditions of globalization there is a reduction of inter-country barriers
with preservation of cultural traits, which increases the significance of cross-
cultural studies of the behavior in consumers on different markets of products and
CORRESPONDENCE Irina Romanova Email: romanova.im@dvfu.ru

© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) apply. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, on the condition that users give exact credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if they made any changes.
6636 ROMANOVA ET AL.
products. The established situation is also representative for the higher education
products market. Growing inter-country competition defines the need in
searching new sources for increasing universities’ competitiveness. Consideration
of cultural specifics of the education products consumers’ behavior might act as
one of the factors for increasing universities’ international competitiveness. The
aim of present study is to develop and validate a methodic approach and inventory
for studying the effect of cultural traits on the consumers’ behavior on the higher
education products market. Cross-cultural studies of Russian and international
researchers analyze the relationship of culture and personality, culture influence
on consumers’ economic behavior in light of different markets of products and
services, and the connection of cultural changes with the level of social-economic
development. N.M. Lebedeva and A.N. Tatarko state that the connection between
cultural values and economic development is versatile and changes with the
society evolution (Lebedeva & Tatarko, 2007). It is necessary to point out that
cross-cultural analysis is often conducted on the joint of different fields of
knowledge. V.V. Karacharovskiy, O.I. Shkaraton and G.A. Yastrebov explore
cross-cultural interactions in the segment of highly-qualified labor of Russian
economics (Karacharovskiy et al., 2014). A.M. Almakaeva analyzes consumers’
trust in the contest of cross-cultural studies (Almakaeva, 2014). P.M. Fedorov
establishes the influence of various factors on social affirmations of Russians and
residents of European countries (Fedorov, 2015). M.S. Yanitskiy and O.A. Braun
analyze the specifics of axiological hierarchy of teachers and students in different
countries in the cross-cultural context (Yanitskiy & Braun, 2015).
The problems of cross-cultural studies of consumers’ behavior are represented
in the works of international researchers, such as Agarwal et al., 2010; Cheung et
al., 2011; Gelade, 2008; Gesteland, 2012; Harrison, 2006; Hofstede et al., 2002;
Solomon, 2012, and others. The field of cross-cultural studies in the context of
universities’ international competitiveness is addressed in the works of Aghion et.
al, 2010; Buela-Casal et. al, 2007; Dill et. al, 2005; Filinov et. al, 2002; Li et. al,
2011; Liu and Cheng, 2005; Mohrman, 2013; Mok, 2014.
During the construction of international university rankings a large number
of factors are considered: qualification of scientific-pedagogic employees, efficiency
of scientific research activity, level of material-technical foundation development,
the amount of attracted international students, etc. Studying the issues of
students’ mobility is tightly linked to cross-cultural analysis. However, the
problems of studying cultural traits’ influence on consumers’ behavior on higher
education products market are still not studied enough; methodical questions of
organizing the conduction such studies, including the inventory, have been
studied especially insufficiently.
2. Methodology
The aim of the study is to evaluate the influence of a culture model on the
behavior of Russian and Chinese students-consumers on higher education
products market on the basis of the development of uniquely designed methodical
inventory. According to the aim, the following tasks have been set in the present
study: 1) to create a culture model with regard to the factors that influence the
development of higher education products market for two countries – Russia and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION 6637
China; 2) to develop an inventory for surveying the representatives of different

cultures in order to reveal the influence of the culture model on the consumers’
behavioral traits on the higher education products market; 3) to conduct the
survey among Russian and Chinese students; 4) to qualitatively define the
influence of the culture model elements on the behavior on students-consumers
on the higher education products market in light of the 7P marketing complex
(Product, Price, Place, Promotion, People, Process, Physical evidence) by
constructing the matrices of cross-cultural analysis; 5) to compare the behavior of
Russian and Chinese students on higher education products market.
We propose the following hypothesis of the study:
H1: Consumers’ behavioral traits on the higher education products market
depend on the culture model of a certain country.
H2: Cultural values have a higher effect on students’ behavior on higher
education products market in comparison with other elements of the cultural
model (material and institutional environment).
Within the present study we used J. Moven’s (1995) culture model, which
includes a list of cultural values, characteristics of material environment
(economic development, geographic characteristics, natural resources,
technical/scientific level) and institutional environment (legal, political, business,
religious and sub-cultural characteristics).
During the culture model construction we used the cultural values
classification proposed by M.S. Yanitskiy and O. A. Braun (Yanitskiy & Braun,
2015):
- Values of adaptation (absence of need, material well-being; preservations
of power and health; preservation of order and stability in the society);
- Values of socialization (family well-being; good prestigious job; respect of
others and social recognition);
- Values of individualization (opportunity for intellectual and creative self-
actualization; opportunity to use democratic rights and freedoms; construction of
a more humane and tolerant society).
Elements of the institutional environment were evaluated according to the
following characteristics: level of governmental regulation of education; level of
security in educational institutions; level of political stability in the country; level
of religious limitations’ influence on the educational products consumption; level
of religion influence on the proposition of educational products.
Similar to the institutional environment elements, material environment was
assessed with regard to the specifics of educational products market according to
the following characteristics: level of educational institutions availability; level of
the country’s economic development; level of technological and scientific fields
development; level of application of modern technologies and equipment in
educational institutions; level of interaction of innovation centers and educational
institutions. Upon the results of the respondents’ interview we constructed the
culture model.
In order to define the cultural model influence on the consumers’ behavior on
higher education products market, the survey included questions, which
characterize the preferences of Russian and Chinese students in line with the 7P
marketing complex:
- Product: variety of educational programs; presence of joint two-diploma

programs; possibility of studying within two (or more) programs simultaneously;
presence of student exchange programs; variety in educational levels; presence of
a preparative department (for international students);
- Price: conditions of applying and studying on the public entity; price of
education; presence of scholarships; price of accommodation and catering;
possibility of transferring from paid education to public entity;
- Place of product supply: possibility of distance application in college;
college location in regard to students’ residence location and city infrastructure;
presence of internships and advanced education abroad during education;
- Promotion: informational supply for applicants and employers about the
college; convenience and informational sufficiency of the official college Web-site;
presence of communication with the college in social networks; presence of events
for informing about educational conditions; visibility and memorability of the
trademark style (brand) of the college; presence of the reviews from friends, who
obtained their education from the considered college;
- People: qualification of scientific-pedagogical employees; university’s
supply of teaching staff; competency of managers and supervisors of educational
programs; quality of technical staff’s work;
- Process: variety of forms of education; study schedule; system of
knowledge evaluation; teaching technologies;
- Physical evidence: level of comfort of classrooms; college’s supply of
modern educational equipment; material and technical foundation of the college;
state of sport objects and student residences; college’s supply of cafeterias, copy
centers; presence of medical room on the college grounds; presence of free Wi-Fi
in educational buildings, presence of spots selling food.
All of the aforementioned characteristics were evaluated within the developed
inventory on a Likert scale, where 1 meant “completely disagree”, 2 - “disagree”,
3 – “cannot answer definitively”, 4 – “agree” and 5 – “completely agree”. On the
basis of the developed methodic inventory, the authors conducted a survey of
Chinese and Russian students (the study was conducted in March-April 2015;
student sample consisted of 1500, including 750 Russian respondents and 750
Chinese respondents). Based on the results of the survey we constructed cross-
cultural analysis matrices (Aleshina, 2011), which show the culture model
influence of the behavior of Russian and Chinese students during the choice of
educational products.
3. Result
Based on the developed methodical inventory, the authors conducted a survey
of Chinese and Russian students; its results allowed establishing the significance
of cultural values for the respondents (Figure 1).
Absence of material
need, material well-
being
Construction of a
5
more humane and 4 Family well-being
tolerant society
3
2 Opportunity for
Respect of others and intellectual and
1 Russia
social recognition creative self-
0 actualization
China
Preservation of order
Preservation of
and stability in the
powers and health
society
Opportunity to use
democratic rights and Good prestigious job
freedoms
Figure 1. Distribution of average ratings of cultural values in Russian and

Chinese students on the Likert scale, 2015 (weighted means, n=1500)
Among the most significant cultural values Russian students list the
opportunity for intellectual and creative self-actualization (4.50 points), absence
of material need, material well-being (4.30 points), family well-being (4.20 points);
Chinese students list preservation of powers and health (4.56 points) , good
prestigious job (4.55 points) and opportunity to use democratic rights and
freedoms (4.53 points). The results of the analysis showed that the most
significant split is observed for the possibility to use democratic rights and
freedoms. Namely, Russian students perceive their possibilities to use democratic
rights and freedoms and an objective reality, contrary to Chinese students, which
affected the priorities in values ranking.
Satisfaction by the material environment values in the rankings of Russian
and Chinese students is characterized by larger differences in comparison with
cultural values (Figure 2).
The level of economic

development of country
4
3
The level of interaction 2 The level of technological
between innovation
and scientific environment
centers and educational 1
in the country
institutions Russia
0
China
The level of use of

modern technologies and The level of security of
equipment in educational educational institutions
institutions
Figure 2. Distribution of the average rankings of the material environment in

Russian and Chinese students on the Likert scale, 2015 (weighted means,
n=1500).
It is necessary to point out that Russian students’ satisfaction with material
environment elements is significantly lower compared to Chinese students, which
affects the culture model development, which, in turn, shapes consumer behavior
on higher education products market. To large extent, this situation is explained
by higher criticism level in the Russian students’ ranking.
Respondents’ evaluation of institutional environment show high level of
satisfaction by the institutional environment elements in Chinese students
(Figure 3).
The level of security in

educational institutions
5
4
3
The level of religious
restrictions influence on 2 The level of political
the consumption of stability in the country
educational services 1
Russia
0
China
The level of religion

The level of state
influence on educational
regulation of education
services' offer
Figure 3. Distribution of average rankings of the institutional environment in

Russian and Chinese respondents on the Likert scale, 2015 (weighted means,
n=1500).
The largest differences in the respondents’ rankings are revealed for such
parameters, as level of religion influence on offer and consumption of educational
products. The rankings of Russian and Chinese students correspond for such
characteristics, as level of governmental regulation of education and level of
security in educational institutions, which is especially significant during the
choice of college abroad.
In order to confirm the first hypothesis, the authors constructed cross-cultural
analysis matrices, based on the results of the survey, which reveal the connection
between culture model and consumers’ behavior on higher education products
market in line with 7P marketing complex (Product, Price, Place, Promotion,
People, Process, Physical evidence) (tables 1,2).
Table 1
Cross-cultural analysis matrix of Russian students’ behavior on higher
education products market (weighted means, n=750)
Marketing complex
Physical
Product Price Place Promotion People Process
evidence
Culture model
elements
Values 3,6 3,7 3,9 3,8 4,1 3,9 4,0
Material
2,9 3,0 3,2 3,1 3,4 3,2 3,3
environment
Institutional
3,0 3,1 3,3 3,3 3,5 3,3 3,4
environment
Cross-cultural analysis matrix demonstrates average level of culture model

elements influence on Russian students’ behavior on higher education products
market (rankings of culture model influence on students’ behavior ranges in the
interval between 3.6-4.1 points).
Cross-cultural analysis matrix of Chinese students’ behavior on higher
education products market (weighted means, n=750)
Marketing complex
Promotio Physical
Product Price Place People Process
n evidence
Culture model
elements
Values 4,2 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,4 4,2 4,2
Material
3,8 3,9 4,0 3,9 4,0 3,8 3,8
environment
Institutional
3,9 4,0 4,0 4,0 4,1 3,9 3,9
environment
However, the level of culture model elements on Chinese students’ behavior is

slightly higher than in Russian students (scores range in the interval between 3.8-
4.4 points on the Likert scale); moreover, the influence of cultural values on
students’ behavior dominates. In our opinion, such situation is defined by the
specifics of educational products as the object of research focus.
The hypothesis about the dependence of consumers’ behavior on higher
education products market from culture model of a certain country has been
confirmed completely.
It is interesting to address culture model influence on students’ behavior on
higher education products market in line with the 7P complex in more detail. As
a result of the study, we established that culture model influence on the choice of
educational program, education level, possibility to study on two or more
programs simultaneously, significance of presence of student exchange programs
and preparation department for international students is average in Russian
students (weighted means of the scores range between 2.5 and 3.8 points on a five-
point scale) and high in Chinese students (weighted means of the scores range
between 3.7 and 4.3 points on a five-point scale) (table 3).
Table 3
Matrix of Russian and Chinese students’ culture model on the behavior on
higher education products market (for Product), (weighted means, n=1500)
Material Institutional
Culture model Values
environment environment
Product
Russia China Russia China Russia China
Wide choice of educational programs 3,8 4,2 3,1 3,8 3,3 3,8
Wide choice of education levels (pre-college

3,7 4,3 3,0 3,9 3,2 4,0
education, bachelor, master, etc.)
Possibility to study on two (or more)

3,5 4,1 2,8 3,8 2,9 3,8
educational programs simultaneously
Presence of joint two-diploma programs 3,6 4,2 2,9 3,8 3,0 3,8
Presence of student exchange programs 3,5 4,1 2,8 3,7 2,9 3,8
Presence of preparation department 3,2 4,2 2,5 3,8 2,6 3,8
Similar patterns were established during the analysis of culture model

influence on importance of the possibility to study on public entity basis, low cost
of education, insignificant increase of educational products’ cost, possibility to
transfer from paid education to public entity, presence of scholarships and
possibility of receiving them, low cost of living in a students’ residence, low cost of
meals and meals in student cafeterias and cafes. In Russian students weighted
mean scores range from 2.8 to 4.0 points on a five-point scale, and for Chinese
students – from 3.7 to 4.5 points (table 4).
Table 4
higher education products market (for Price), (weighted means, n=1500)
Product
Possibility to study on public entity basis

(large amount of public entity places on 4,0 4,2 3,3 3,8 3,4 3,8
your field of study)
Low cost of education (for students who pay

3,6 4,1 2,9 3,7 3,0 3,8
for their education)
Insignificant annual increase of educational

products cost (for students who pay for their 3,6 4,2 2,9 3,8 3,0 3,9
education)
Possibility to transfer from paid education

to public entity (for students who pay for 3,5 4,4 2,8 4,0 2,9 4,1
their education)
Presence of scholarships and possibilities to

receive them (for students who do not pay 3,9 4,4 3,2 4,0 3,3 4,1
for their education)
Low cost of living in a students’ residence 3,7 4,5 3,0 4,2 3,1 4,2
Low cost of meals and meals in student

3,8 4,4 3,1 4,0 3,2 4,1
cafeterias and cafes
Analysis of culture model influence on Russian students’ behavior concerning

the choice of place of educational services provision showed that the influence is
insignificant upon almost all positions excluding such characteristics, as college
proximity to the city infrastructure. The largest differences in Russian and
Chinese students’ behavior are observed for the importance of college location in
ecologically clean area (weighted means range from 2.9 to 3.6 points in Russian
students and from 4.1 to 4.5 points in Chinese students). In our opinion, to high
extent it is explained by Russian students’ indifference towards this problem
(table 5).
Table 5
higher education products market (for Place), (weighted means, n=1500)
Product
Possibility of distance application in college

3,8 4,2 3,1 3,8 3,2 3,9
(through intermediate agents)
Presence of internships and advanced

3,9 4,3 3,2 3,9 3,3 4,0
education abroad
College location in ecologically clean area 3,6 4,5 2,9 4,1 3,1 4,2
College location in regard to students’

3,9 4,4 3,2 4,1 3,3 4,1
permanent residence location
College proximity in regard to students’

4,0 4,3 3,3 4,0 3,4 4,0
place of residence during his education
Convenient college location in regard to city

4,0 4,4 3,3 4,0 3,4 4,0
infrastructure
It is necessary to point out similar culture model influence on students’

preferences in the choice of communication means (presence of necessary
information about the college in student’s country and city; convenience and
informational sufficiency of the official college Web-site; possibility of
communication with the college in social networks; presence of events for
informing about educational conditions; visibility and memorability of the

trademark style of the college; presence of the reviews from friends, who obtained
their education from the considered college), which is more defined by cultural
values (weighted means range from 3.6 to 4.4 points) (table 6).
Table 6
higher education products market (for Promotion), (weighted means, n=1500)
Product
Presence of necessary information about the

college in student’s country (for
3,9 4,2 3,2 3,8 3,4 3,9
international students) or region (for
Russian applicants and employers)
Convenient official Web-site of the college 3,9 4,4 3,2 4,0 3,3 4,0
Possibility of communication with the

4,0 4,4 3,3 4,0 3,4 4,1
college in social networks
Presence of events for informing about

3,8 4,2 3,1 3,9 3,2 3,9
educational conditions
Visibility and memorability of the

3,6 4,3 2,9 3,9 3,0 4,0
trademark style of the college
Good reviews from friends, who obtained

3,9 4,4 3,2 4,1 3,3 4,1
their education from that college
High qualification of scientific-pedagogical employees has traditionally

provided competitiveness of the educational institutions. The conducted cross-
cultural analysis confirmed the established tendencies (table 7).
Table 7
higher education products market (for People), (weighted means, n=1500)
Staff
High qualification of scientific-pedagogical

4,3 4,5 3,6 4,2 3,7 4,2
employees
University’s supply of teaching staff 4,1 4,4 3,4 4,1 3,6 4,1
Competency of managers and supervisors of

4,1 4,2 3,4 3,9 3,5 3,9
educational programs
Quality of technical staff’s work 3,9 4,2 3,2 3,9 3,3 3,9
In comparison with other elements of the 7P complex, the characteristics of

culture model influence on students’ preferences concerning the process of product
supply is slightly lower (table 8).
Table 8
higher education products market (for Process), (weighted means, n=1500)
Process of product supply
Variety of forms of education 4,0 4,2 3,3 3,8 3,4 3,8
Convenient study schedule 4,1 4,1 3,4 3,8 3,5 3,8
Possibility to adjust study schedule 3,8 4,2 3,1 3,8 3,2 3,9
Convenient system of knowledge evaluation

3,6 4,3 2,9 3,9 3,0 3,9
(rating)
Use of modern teaching technologies during

3,9 4,3 3,2 3,9 3,3 3,9
the education
A significant role in students’ life and preferences belongs to educational

(comfortable classrooms, specialized laboratories, etc.) and social infrastructure
(housing and utility, public catering and merchandising, sport and recreation,
communications, etc.) (table 9).
Table 9
higher education products market (for Physical evidence), (weighted means,
n=1500)
Physical evidence
Comfortable classrooms in educational

3,9 4,4 3,2 4,1 3,3 4,1
buildings
Presence of specialized laboratories with

4,1 4,3 3,4 4,0 3,5 4,0
modern equipment
Well-developed material and technical

4,1 4,4 3,4 4,0 3,5 4,1
foundation of the college
College’s supply of sport objects 3,9 4,5 3,2 4,1 3,3 4,2
Comfortable student residences on the

3,9 4,4 3,2 4,0 3,3 4,0
campus territory
Sufficient amount of cafeterias on the

3,9 4,4 3,2 4,1 3,4 4,1
college grounds
Sufficient amount of spots selling food on

3,9 4,4 3,2 4,1 3,3 4,1
the college grounds
Sufficient amount of copy centers in the

3,9 4,2 3,2 3,8 3,4 3,8
educational buildings
Presence of spots selling stationery supplies

3,9 4,4 3,2 4,0 3,3 4,1
on the college grounds
Presence of medical room 4,0 2,5 3,3 2,2 3,4 2,2
Free Wi-Fi in educational buildings 4,1 4,5 3,4 4,1 3,5 4,2
It is necessary to point out high culture model influence (especially cultural

values) on the importance of free Wi-Fi in educational buildings (weighted means
– 4.1-45. points) for Russian and Chinese students. Large differences are revealed
in the rankings of influence of a culture model of a certain country on the
importance of college’s supply of sport objects (for Russian students the rankings
are 3.2-39 points, while for Chinese students – 4.1-4.4 points). High level of
healthcare system development in China and mistrust towards Russian
healthcare system, in our opinion, defines low level of significance of medical

rooms presence in Russian colleges for Chinese students (weighted means range
from 2.2 to 2.5 points along with generally high level of scores).
The hypothesis that cultural values have a larger influence of students’
behavior on higher education products market in comparison with other culture
model elements (material and institutional environment) has been confirmed
completely, which can be explained by the specifics of studied higher education
products market.
4. Discussion
On the current stage, the evaluation of cultural values during the construction
of culture model is conducted with various methods (Hofstede et al., 2002;
Yanitskiy & Braun, 2015; Moven, 1995 and others). The question of the validity
of using a certain method with regard of the specifics of the studied market is still
being discussed. In present study we used the method of measuring the values by
M. Yanitskiy and O. Braun (Yanitskiy & Braun, 2015), which partially considers
the specifics of educational products market.
During the evaluation of cultural traits influence of students’ behavior on
higher education products market in present study we used matrices of
compatibility of culture model and students’ behavioral traits (cross-cultural
marketing matrix) by J. Moven and I. Aleshina (Moven, 1995; Aleshina, 2011).
During the construction of the compatibility matrix, matrix completion by the
characteristics of consumers’ behavior in line with the 7P marketing complex
elements remains open to discussion. In present study we attempted to solve this
problem.
The directions of further studies within the stated problem of measuring the
cross-cultural specifics influence on students’ behavior on higher education
products market might be related to expanding geographical and national borders
of the study and to involving a larger amount of respondents from different
countries. Apart from that, it requires a complex approach, which includes both
quantitative and qualitative research methods (focus-groups, profound interviews
with representative of different culture of the target group, etc.)
5. Conclusion
Within the present study:
1. We developed a methodical approach and inventory for analyzing the
influence of cross-cultural traits on students’ attitude towards the proposed
higher education products in line with the 7P complex (Product, Price, Place,
Promotion, People, Process, Physical evidence).
2. We defined the factors that affect the development and construction of
culture models:
- List of cultural values;
- Elements of institutional environment (level of governmental regulation
of education; level of security in educational institutions; level of political stability
in the country; level of religious limitations’ influence on the educational products
consumption; level of religion influence on the proposition of educational
products);
- Elements of material environment (level of educational institutions
availability; level of the country’s economic development; level of technological
and scientific fields development; level of application of modern technologies and

equipment in educational institutions; level of interaction of innovation centers
and educational institutions).
3. We propose a methodical approach and inventory for evaluating culture
model elements influence on students’ attitude towards the choice of educational
products proposed by the university in line with the 7P complex (Product, Price,
Place, Promotion, People, Process, Physical evidence). Based on that, we defined
cross-cultural differences in the behavior of Russian and Chinese students on
higher education products market, which necessarily have to be considered by
Russian universities in order to increase their international competitiveness.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Agarwal, J., Malhotra, N., Bolton, R. (2010). A Cross-National and Cross-Cultural Approach to Global
Market Segmentation: An Application Using Consumers' Perceived Service Quality. Journal of
International Marketing, 18(3), pp. 18-40.
Aghion, P., Dewatripoint, M., Hoxby, C.M., Mas-Colell, A., Sapir, A. (2010). The governance and
performance of research universities: Evidence from Europe and the USA. Economic Policy, 25(61),
pp. 7–59.
Aleshina, I.V. (2011). Marketing: kross-kulturnye problem i vozmozhnosti. [Marketing: cross-cultural
problems and opportunities]. Sovremennyy menedzhment: problem, gipotezy, issledovaniya. (Ed.
M.Yu. Shereshev). M.: NIU VSHE.
Almakaeva, A.M. (2014). Izmerenie generalizovannogo (obobschennogo) doveriya v kross-culturnykh
issledovaniyakh. [Evaluating generalized trust in cross-cultural studies]. Sotsiologicheskie
issledovaniya, 11, pp. 32-43.
Buela-Casal, G., Gutiérrez-Martínez, O., Bermúdez-Sánchez, M., Vadillo-Muñoz, O. (2007).
Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities. Scientometrics, 71 (3), pp.
349–365
Cheung, F.M., Van de Vijver, F.J.R., Leong F.T.L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the assessment
of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66 (7), pp. 593– 603.
Dill, D.D., Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables and public policy: A cross-national analysis
of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49, pp. 495–533.
Fedorov, P.M. (2015). O sravnimosti rezultatov kross-kulturnykh issledovaniy (na primere izmereniya
ustanovok v otnoshenii migrantov). [On compatibility of cross-cultural studies (on the example of
evaluationg attitudes towards migrants)]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 1, pp. 73-78.
Filinov, N.B., Ruchkina S. (2002). The ranking of higher education institutions in Russia: some
methodological problems. Higher Education in Europe, 27, pp. 407–421.
Gelade, G.A. (2008). IQ, cultural values, and the technological achievement of nations. Intelligence,
36(6), pp. 711–718.
Gesteland, R. (2012). Cross Cultural Business Behavior: Negotiating, Selling, Sourcing And Managing
Across Cultures. Copenhagen Business School Press.
Harrison, L.E. (2006). The Central Liberal Truth: How Politics Can Change a Culture and Save It
from Itself. Oxford University Press.
Hofstede, G.J., Pedersen, P.B., Hofstede, G. (2002). Exploring Culture: Exercises, Stories and
Synthetic Cultures. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.
Karacharovskiy, V.V., Shkaratan, O.I., Yastrebov, G.A. (2014). Kultura i modernizatsiya v zerkale
vzaimodeystviya rossiyskikh i inostrannykh professionalov v multinatsionalnykh trudovykh
kollektivakh v Rossii. [Culture and modernization in light of interactions between Russian and
foreign professionals in multinational working teams in Russia]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya,
8, pp. 67-77.
Lebedeva, N.M., Tatarko, A.N. (2007). Tsennosti kultury i razvitie obschestva. [Cultural values and
development of the society]. Moscow: HSE Publishing House
Li, M., Shankar, S., Tang, K.K. (2011). Why does the USA dominate university league tables? Studies
in Higher Education, 36(8), pp. 923-937
Liu, N.C., Cheng, Y. (2005). The academic ranking of world universities. Higher Education in Europe,
30, pp. 127–136.
Mohrman, K. (2013). Are Chinese universities globally competitive? China Quarterly, 215, pp. 727-
734.
Mok, K.H. (2014) Enhancing quality of higher education for world-class status: Approaches, strategies,
and challenges for Hong Kong. Chinese Education and Society, 47(1), pp. 44-64.
Moven, J. (1995). Consumer Behavior. 4-th ed. Macmillan Publishing Co.
Solomon, М. (2012). Consumer Behavior. Prentice Hall of India.
Yanitskiy, M.S., Braun, O.A. (2015). Etnokulturnaya spetsifika tsennostnoy ierarkhii pedagogov kak
agentov sotsializatsii. [Ethnic-cultural specifics of axiological hierarchy in teachers as agents of
socialization]. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 3(63), pp. 262-267.
Cultural trait
A cultural trait is a single identifiable material or non-material element within a culture, and is conceivable
as an object in itself.[1][2][3]
Similar traits can be grouped together as components, or subsystems of culture;[4] the terms sociofact and
mentifact (or psychofact)[5] were coined by biologist Julian Huxley as two of three subsystems of culture
—the third being artifacts—to describe the way in which cultural traits take on a life of their own, spanning
over generations.[2]
In other words, cultural traits can be categorized into three interrelated components:[3][4]
1. Artifacts — the objects, material items, and technologies created by a culture, or simply,
things people make. They provide basic necessities, recreation, entertainment, and most of
the things that make life easier for people. Examples include clothing, food, and shelter.
2. Sociofacts — interpersonal interactions and social structures;[6] i.e., the structures and
organizations of a culture that influence social behaviour. This includes families,
governments, education systems, religious groups, etc.
3. Mentifact (or psychofact)[5] — abstract concepts, or "things in the head;"[1] i.e., the shared
ideas, values, and beliefs of a culture. This can include religion, language, and ideas.
Moreover, sociofacts are considered by some to be mentifacts that have been shared through artifacts.[7]
This formulation has been related to memetics[8] and the memetic concept of culture.[7] These concepts
have been useful to anthropologists in refining the definition of culture.[9]
Contents
Development
Sociofact
See also
References
Development
These concepts have been useful to anthropologists in refining the definition of culture, which Huxley
views as contemplating artifacts, mentifacts, and sociofacts.[9] For instance, Edward Tylor, the first
academic anthropologist, included both artifacts and abstract concepts like kinship systems as elements of
culture. Anthropologist Robert Aunger, however, explains that such an inclusive definition ends up
encouraging poor anthropological practice because "it becomes difficult to distinguish what exactly is not
part of culture."[1] Aunger goes on to explain that, after the cognitive revolution in the social sciences in the
1960s, there is "considerable agreement" among anthropologists that a mentifactual analysis, one that
assumes that culture consists of "things in the head" (i.e. mentifacts), is the most appropriate way to define
the concept of culture.[1]
Sociofact
The idea of the sociofact was developed extensively by David Bidney in his 1967 textbook Theoretical
Anthropology, in which he used the term to refer to objects that consist of interactions between members of
a social group.[10] Bidney's 'sociofact' includes norms that "serve to regulate the conduct of the individual
within society."[11]
The concept has since been used by other philosophers and social scientists in their analyses of varying
kinds of social groups. For instance, in a discussion of the semiotics of the tune 'Taps', semiotician of music
Charles Boilès claims that although it is a single piece of music, it can be seen as three distinct musical
sociofacts: as a "last call" signal in taverns frequented by soldiers; as an "end of day" signal on military
bases; and hence, symbolically, as a component of military funerals.[5] The claim has been made that
sociofactual analysis can play a decisive role for the performance of, and collaboration within,
organizations.[12]
See also
meme
cultural universals
References
1. Robert Aunger (2002). The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We Think (https://archive.o
rg/details/electricmemenewt0000aung). New York: The Free Press. ISBN 0-7432-0150-7.
2. Huxley, Julian S. 1955. "Guest Editorial: Evolution, Cultural and Biological." Yearbook of
Anthropology, 2–25.
3. "Topic" (http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/geog1000/Notes/Notes_Exam1/Culture.html).
maps.unomaha.edu. Retrieved 2021-03-27.
4. https://www.heritage.nf.ca/nl-studies-2205/chapter-1-topic-1.pdf
5. Boilès, Charles L. (1982). "Processes of Musical Semiosis". Yearbook for Traditional Music.
14: 24–44. doi:10.2307/768069 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F768069). JSTOR 768069 (http
s://www.jstor.org/stable/768069).
6. Hayler, M. (2015-05-07). Challenging the Phenomena of Technology (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=1Nm_CQAAQBAJ&q=sociofact+huxley&pg=PT134). Springer.
ISBN 9781137377869.
7. Pim, Joám Evans (2009). Toward a Nonkilling Paradigm. Center for Global Nonkilling.
p. 260. ISBN 9780982298312.
8. Bribiesca, Luis B. (2001). "Memetics: a dangerous idea". Interciencia. 26 (1): 29–31.
9. Sriraman, Bharath; Goodchild, Simon (2009). Relatively and Philosophically Earnest:
Festschrift in honor of Paul Ernest's 65th Birthday. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing. p. 135. ISBN 9781607522416.
10. Bidney, David (1967). Theoretical Anthropology (https://archive.org/details/theoreticalanthr0
000bidn) (2nd ed.). New York: Schocken.
11. Ingold, Tim (2016). Evolution and Social Life. Oxon: Routledge. p. 283.
ISBN 9781138675858.
12. Uwe V. Riss; Johannes Magenheim; Wolfgang Reinhardt; Tobias Nelkner; Knut Hinkelmann
(March 2011). "Added Value of Sociofact Analysis for Business Agility" (http://www.aaai.org/
ocs/index.php/SSS/SSS11/paper/view/2444). AAAI Publications, 2011 AAAI Spring
Symposium Series. Retrieved 5 August 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_trait&oldid=1056494331"
This page was last edited on 22 November 2021, at 03:45 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Cultural Traits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cultural Traits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

China Germany Japan USA

RCAit    Culturei    LPit   Populationit   PHKit   HUKit

Country RCA Country RCA Country RCA

United States 1.7153 Mexico 0.5606 Ukraine 0.1788

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) VIF

(0.0237) (0.0242) (0.0242) (0.024) (0.0247) (0.0250) (0.0257) (0.0811)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) VIF

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) VIF

Table 5 Table 6 Table 7

World's largest Science,

Selection of our books indexed in the

Interested in publishing with InTechOpen?

Characterization of Cultural Traits by Means of Fractal

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Archaeology, as a science, dares to explain how extinct societies functioned. As in all

Keywords: cultural patterns, archaeology, fractal dimension, fractal signature, Xajay,

Archaeology is the science of fragments. Archaeologists excavate to obtain information from

2. The elusive Xajay

3. The fractal nature of archaeological objects

5. Fractal dimensions of the Xajay culture

Xajay Cerro de la Cruz Teotihuacan

Cantona Cacaxtla Xochicalco

Tula Teotenango Tenayuca

Table 1. Topographical maps of archaeological sites.

Figure 1. Fractal dimension and lacunarity of the location of archaeological sites.

Original survey photograph Retraced motif Binary image

Table 2. Example of the extraction of petroglyph motif.

5.3. Projectile points

Table 3. Example of the extraction of the silhouette of a point.

Figure 2. Fractal dimension and lacunarity of Xajay projectile points.

Figure 3. Fractal dimension and lacunarity of projectile points.

6. The fractal signature

as many aspects of a culture as is required to build a fractal signature that character-

Likewise, it can be represented in a vector notation in the three-dimensional cultural space

A graphical representation of these fractal signatures in the three-dimensional cultural space

Topography Petroglyphs Projectile points

Table 4. Prototype of the Xajay fractal signature.

Topography Petroglyphs Projectile points

Teotihuacan 1.7339 1.5067 1.0535

Cantona 1.7181 1.1819 1.0402

Table 5. Three attribute fractal signature of the Xajay, Teotihuacan, and Cantona.

Figure 4. Fractal signature of the Xajay, Teotihuacan, and Cantona.

[1] Sandoval G. Un espacio autosimilar. El altépetl, el centro ceremonial y la ofrenda [Tesis de

Introduction important part of chimpanzee culture is mainly exhibited by

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 March 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 3 | e9241

tested if the length of each long-term project affected the reported

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 March 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 3 | e9241

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 March 2010 | Volume 5 | Issue 3 | e9241

Evaluation of The Cross-Cultural Traits Influence on The

Irina M. Romanovaa, Elena V. Noskovaa,

KEYWORDS ARTICLE HISTORY

CORRESPONDENCE Irina Romanova Email: romanova.im@dvfu.ru

China; 2) to develop an inventory for surveying the representatives of different

- Product: variety of educational programs; presence of joint two-diploma

Figure 1. Distribution of average ratings of cultural values in Russian and

The level of economic

The level of use of

Figure 2. Distribution of the average rankings of the material environment in

The level of security in

The level of religion

Figure 3. Distribution of average rankings of the institutional environment in

Values 3,6 3,7 3,9 3,8 4,1 3,9 4,0

Cross-cultural analysis matrix demonstrates average level of culture model

Values 4,2 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,4 4,2 4,2

Figure 1. Fractal dimension and lacunarity of the location of archaeological sites.

Figure 2. Fractal dimension and lacunarity of Xajay projectile points.

Figure 3. Fractal dimension and lacunarity of projectile points.

Figure 4. Fractal signature of the Xajay, Teotihuacan, and Cantona.