We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Skip main navigation

Understanding values dimensions

This article provides an overview of leading values dimensions and frameworks developed by scholars to make sense of cultural differences. No matter w
© Steve J. Kulich, Shanghai International Studies University
This article provides an overview of leading values dimensions and frameworks developed by scholars to make sense of cultural differences. No matter what approach you use, each provides some important insights worth considering.

Values Theory: Sociocultural Dimensions and Frameworks

One of the greatest difficulties faced by psychologists or communication scholars in studying values is how best to compare or contrast them across cultural and linguistic barriers. Values are a primary motivational construct with great influence on human behavior at both the individual and collective level. But if the quality and quantity of influence varies across cultures, how can we accurately measure the differences? This article discusses in detail the ways that several key scholars have dealt with this difficulty.
We’ve already discussed the work of the Kluchkhohns and their team’s five specific Variations of Values Orientations (1961)—human nature, man and the environment, time, activity, and social relationships. It is important to note that for each, the preferences of any given culture could spread across a range (they highlighted three positions) within each ‘orientation.’ Though insightful at a descriptive level, they did not help social scientists with measurements or objective comparisons.
You are also now aware that Geert Hofstede had access to an incredibly large multi-national data pool through his work with IBM and that he empirically generated first four (now six) binary dimensions in Culture’s Consequences (1980). The ‘Individualism/Collectivism’ dimension, for example, allows the scoring of cultures anywhere between those two poles, providing a statistically comparative tool for national level cultural analysis. This dimension has led to Hofstede being one of the most cited social science scholars in the IC field.
Fons Trompenaars and colleagues like Charles Hampden-Turner combined explanatory domains from Hall, Kluckhohn, and Hofstede, positing seven dimensions:
  1. Universalism vs. particularism.
  2. Individualism vs. communitarianism.
  3. Specific vs. diffuse
  4. Neutral vs. emotional.
  5. Achievement vs. ascription.
  6. Sequential vs. synchronous time.
  7. Internal vs. outer direction.
These contrasts are widely used in business training and consulting.
Robert House and others sought to update Hofstede’s work for their Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) survey. They expanded Hofstede’s dimensions into nine and then analyzed each according to Milton Rokeach’s earlier distinction—as practices (“as is”), and as values (“as it should be,” the desired level), providing new dimensions and data for global business contexts.
In an answer to criticisms of Hofstede, Shalom Schwartz and his associates aimed to elicit a universal model of inter-related values. His comprehensive values theory (an a prior theoretical approach compared to Hofstede’s post-hoc analysis) pooled values items into broad types, and then integrated them in a continuum. Unlike Hofstede’s binaries, Schwartz created a circular model, in which 10 types emerged after multiple rounds of multi-national research—Self-direction, Stimulation, Hedonism, Achievement, Power, Security, Conformity, Tradition, Benevolence, and Universalism. These were arranged like wedges in a pie, with opposing values were across from each other, and related values beside one another. Schwartz’s separate individual- and cultural-level circumplex models and rigorous cross-cultural testing have been widely acclaimed and applied by researchers, but so far appear too complex for training designs.
In short, many different dimensions and other tools have been created to assess human similarity and social variation across cultures. The individualism and collectivism dimension is the most studied, though not without adaptations by various scholars. Ongoing scholarly debates, new data analyses, and existing data-set re-analysis show that the endeavor to dimensionalize cultural values is still alive and well.
As an aspiring intercultural communicator yourself, we hope you now note the importance of how specific dimensions and analysis tools were developed. You might want to reflect on one or two new insights gained through this week’s content.
Kulich, S. J. (2009). Values theory: Social-cultural dimensions and frameworks. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), The encyclopedia of communication theory (Vol. 2. pp. 989-994). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. [Accessible at http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/communicationtheory/n391.xml]
© Steve J. Kulich, Shanghai International Studies University
This article is from the free online

Intercultural Communication

Created by
FutureLearn - Learning For Life

Our purpose is to transform access to education.

We offer a diverse selection of courses from leading universities and cultural institutions from around the world. These are delivered one step at a time, and are accessible on mobile, tablet and desktop, so you can fit learning around your life.

We believe learning should be an enjoyable, social experience, so our courses offer the opportunity to discuss what you’re learning with others as you go, helping you make fresh discoveries and form new ideas.
You can unlock new opportunities with unlimited access to hundreds of online short courses for a year by subscribing to our Unlimited package. Build your knowledge with top universities and organisations.

Learn more about how FutureLearn is transforming access to education