施瓦茨文化模式的要素:它们如何与其他文化模式相关联?

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
A. Kaasa, C. Welzel
{"title":"施瓦茨文化模式的要素:它们如何与其他文化模式相关联?","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

最近Kaasa(2021)开发了一个文化模型综合方案(CMSS),将Hofstede, Schwartz和Inglehart的文化模型融合在一起。然而,这一理论框架仍需要实证分析的补充。本文以施瓦茨的问卷为灵感,利用世界价值观调查(WVS)中的十项电池,对施瓦茨的模型进行了探索性研究。我们通过Kaasa和Minkov(2022)的经验框架(该框架已经包括Inglehart的维度和Minkov(2018)对Hofstede模型的修订)将Schwartz的项目经验地定位到理论CMSS中。结果支持了施瓦茨维度在CMSS中的位置。然而,结果也显示出严重的不一致和矛盾的关键字有关的一些施瓦茨的维度。我们强调需要注意哪些关键字和问题措辞捕捉了这些维度的核心,并考虑维度名称的准确性。我们表明,以前与掌握与和谐、等级与平等主义的特定极点相关的一些关键词,实际上可能会触及相反极点的各个方面。我们还建议使用术语“一致性”而不是“和谐”。我们从这些见解中得出结论,跨映射不同文化模型是一项具有显著智力回报的练习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Elements of Schwartz’s Model in the WVS: How Do They Relate to Other Cultural Models?
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cross-Cultural Research
Cross-Cultural Research SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
17
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信