{"title":"Elements of Schwartz’s Model in the WVS: How Do They Relate to Other Cultural Models?","authors":"A. Kaasa, C. Welzel","doi":"10.1177/10693971231179792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recently Kaasa (2021) has developed a Cultural Models Synthesis Scheme (CMSS) merging together the cultural models of Hofstede, Schwartz and Inglehart. However, this theoretical framework still needs to be complemented by an empirical analysis. This exploratory study focuses on the Schwartz’s model using the ten-item battery in the World Values Survey (WVS) inspired by his questionnaire. We empirically position Schwartz’s items into the theoretical CMSS by the means of the empirical framework of Kaasa and Minkov (2022) that already includes Inglehart’s dimensions and Minkov’s (2018) revision of Hofstede’s model. The results support the placements of Schwartz’s dimensions in the CMSS. However, the results also show serious inconsistencies and contradictions regarding the keywords associated to some Schwartz’s dimensions. We highlight the need to be careful about which keywords and question wordings capture the core of those dimensions and to consider the accuracy of the names of dimension. We show that some keywords previously associated with a particular pole of the mastery versus harmony and hierarchy versus egalitarianism, might, in fact, tap aspects of the opposite pole. We also propose using the term ‘conformity’ instead of ‘harmony’. We conclude from these insights that cross-mapping different cultural models is an exercise with significant intellectual payoff.","PeriodicalId":47154,"journal":{"name":"Cross-Cultural Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cross-Cultural Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971231179792","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Recently Kaasa (2021) has developed a Cultural Models Synthesis Scheme (CMSS) merging together the cultural models of Hofstede, Schwartz and Inglehart. However, this theoretical framework still needs to be complemented by an empirical analysis. This exploratory study focuses on the Schwartz’s model using the ten-item battery in the World Values Survey (WVS) inspired by his questionnaire. We empirically position Schwartz’s items into the theoretical CMSS by the means of the empirical framework of Kaasa and Minkov (2022) that already includes Inglehart’s dimensions and Minkov’s (2018) revision of Hofstede’s model. The results support the placements of Schwartz’s dimensions in the CMSS. However, the results also show serious inconsistencies and contradictions regarding the keywords associated to some Schwartz’s dimensions. We highlight the need to be careful about which keywords and question wordings capture the core of those dimensions and to consider the accuracy of the names of dimension. We show that some keywords previously associated with a particular pole of the mastery versus harmony and hierarchy versus egalitarianism, might, in fact, tap aspects of the opposite pole. We also propose using the term ‘conformity’ instead of ‘harmony’. We conclude from these insights that cross-mapping different cultural models is an exercise with significant intellectual payoff.
期刊介绍:
Cross-Cultural Research, formerly Behavior Science Research, is sponsored by the Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (HRAF) and is the official journal of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research. The mission of the journal is to publish peer-reviewed articles describing cross-cultural or comparative studies in all the social/behavioral sciences and other sciences dealing with humans, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, economics, human ecology, and evolutionary biology. Worldwide cross-cultural studies are particularly welcomed, but all kinds of systematic comparisons are acceptable so long as they deal explicity with cross-cultural issues pertaining to the constraints and variables of human behavior.