Aligning Schwartz’s model of culture with that of Minkov-Hofstede

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that the validated dimensions in the best-known models of national culture converge into a two-dimensional default model, yielding a cultural map of the world reminiscent of the geographic one. The revised Minkov-Hofstede model is very similar to that default, whereas Inglehart-Welzel’s model is a rotated and flipped variant of it. However, another popular model - Schwartz’s - differs from the default: it does not have a dimension capturing the cultural contrast between East Asia and Latin America plus Africa. Consequently, it cannot explain national differences in educational achievement and a number of other important national indicators, relevant in international business. This omission in Schwartz’s model is puzzling as its author claims to have analyzed all values with invariant meanings across the world. On the other hand, Schwartz’s model has an idiosyncratic “mastery-harmony” dimension that is not consistent with any geo-economic pattern and has poor predictive properties, constituting another weakness. We show that these idiosyncrasies of Schwartz’s model stem from Schwartz’s controversial decision to ipsatize his items and use multidimensional scaling: a method which, even without ipsatization, can create spatial opposites of items that are not negatively correlated. A principal component analysis of raw (non-ipsatized) Schwartz value domains does yield a variant of the default model of culture. We argue that although ipsatizing Schwartz value measures is not wrong in an absolute sense, it yields an impoverished and somewhat puzzling image of cultural differences across the globe, whereas raw measures reproduce the Minkov-Hofstede variant of the default model relatively well, although a different selection of values might perform even better.