A Dimensional Analysis | My Assignment Tutor

Peter B Smith; Shaun DuganJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Mar96, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p231NATIONAL CULTURE AND THE VALUES OF ORGANIZATIONAL EMPLOYEESA Dimensional Analysis Across 43 NationsThe values of 8,841 managers and organization employees from 43 countries weresurveyed. The range of nations included paralleled many of those surveyed by Hofstede(1980) but added also substantial samples from ex-communist nations. Questionnaireitems focused primarily on measures of universalism-particularism, achievementascription, and individualism-collectivism Multidimensional scaling of country meansrevealed three interpretable dimensions. The relation of these dimensions to the results ofearlier large-scale surveys and to a variety of demographic indexes is explored. It isfound that there are continuing substantial differences in modal cultural values oforganization employees and that these are largely consistent with differences reported byothers. The present results suggest that the dimensions defined by Hofstede asindividualism-collectivism and power distance may be better defined as representingvarying orientations toward continuity of group membership (loyalinvolvement/utilitarian involvement) and varying orientations toward the obligations ofsocial relationship (conservatism/egalitarian commitment).Most psychological research has been undertaken in Western nations, particularly in NorthAmerica (Lonner, 1989; Sampson, 1985; Smith & Bond, 1993). Smith and Bond (1993) note thefrequent failures to replicate social psychological findings from American studies in othernational cultures, thus throwing some doubt on the cross-cultural validity of Western theories ofsuch phenomena as leadership, conformity, group decision making, attribution theory, andintergroup relations.Reflection on the culture-bound nature of much empirical and theoretical psychology underlinesthe need for studies in which the conceptualization and measurement of culture is given a centralrole. A major goal of cross-cultural psychology has been the identification of dimensions ofcultural variation (e.g., Leung & Bond, 1989; Schwartz, 1994). This is an important goal becauseit opens the way to more adequate operationalizations of the concept of culture. The identificationof reliable dimensions of cultural variation should help create a nomological framework that isboth capable of integrating diverse attitudinal and behavioral empirical phenomena and ofproviding a basis for hypothesis generation. Such a framework would help explain, for example,why some replications of North American studies are successful whereas others are not, as afunction of cultural background. It should also enable researchers to select cultural groups forstudy on an a priori basis, according to their positioning on relevant dimensions (Bond, 1988;Leung, Bond, Carment, Krishnan, & Liebrand, 1990). Informed choices of this kind can enablecertain features of culture to be held constant while the effect of varying others is examined.To identify such dimensions, it is desirable for studies to include as many and as wide a range ofcultures as possible. Most extant cross-cultural work has been confined to a small number ofcultures, though there are notable exceptions (Buss et al., 1990; Williams & Best, 1990; as well asothers now to be discussed). Three pioneering research projects have aimed directly at identifyingcultural dimensions of values, namely the projects of Hofstede (1980, 1983, 1991), Bond (1988;Chinese Culture Connection, 1987), and Schwartz (1990, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990).The purpose of the present article is to examine the replicability of their conclusions and toexamine whether clarifications are required of the dimensions defined by these authors. Threeissues are of particular interest. First, a questionnaire designed without direct reference to theresults of existing large-scale cross-national studies is used to check the replicability ofdimensions identified earlier. Second, the data bank on which this study is based makes itpossible to determine whether demographic attributes earlier associated with nations scoring highon, for instance, individualism or collectivism continue to do so. Third, we can examine whetherthe scores obtained by specific nations cluster similarly to those obtained earlier.We shall first examine the prior studies before outlining the basis of the present survey.Hofstede’s Value DimensionsHofstede’s (1980) well-known study was based on the responses of 117,000 personnel from alarge American-owned multinational company in the period between 1967 and 1973 to aquestionnaire containing items predominantly tapping work-related values. On the basis of anecological factor analysis of mean responses from 40 nations on 14 items concerning theimportance of different work goals, Hofstede identified two factors that he labeled individualismand masculinity. A further two dimensions of national culture labeled power distance anduncertainty avoidance emerged from a so-called eclectic analysis, combining items largely on thebasis of theoretical expectations. Hofstede’s analysis of his data bank was later expanded to 53cultures (Hofstede, 1983).Hofstede’s (1980) power distance dimension is defined in terms of the prevailing norms ofinequality within a culture. Individualism-collectivism refers to the extent to which the identity ofmembers of a given culture is shaped primarily by personal choices and achievements or by thegroups to which they belong. Masculinity-femininity corresponds to a “tough-tender” dimension.In masculine cultures, values such as competition, success, and performance are relatively moreprevalent than in feminine cultures, where there is relatively more emphasis on values such aswarm social relationships, quality of life, and care of the weak. The fourth dimension, uncertaintyavoidance, alludes to the degree to which members of a culture are uncomfortable withuncertainties in life. Societies high on this dimension prefer structured rather than unstructuredsituations, where there are clear guidelines for behavior.Validation of the Hofstede (1980) constructs was achieved through establishing the significanceof their correlations with geographic, economic, and social indicators. The association betweenindividualism and economic development was particularly strong, with collectivist nationstending to have lower per capita gross domestic product.Hofstede (1980) reports a high correlation between the power distance and individualismdimensions. Indeed, his ecological factor analysis based on 32 value items resulted in theextraction of three rather than four factors, corresponding to the masculinity and uncertaintyavoidance dimensions and a combination of power distance and individualism. Thus, althoughHofstede preferred to separate these latter two dimensions conceptually, it appears thatempirically speaking they may be manifestations of the same underlying dimension.Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions have been extensively invoked by researchers to help explaincross-cultural differences (Kagitcibasi & Berry, 1989; Smith & Bond, 1993), despite which hisstudy has not escaped criticism. The range of countries sampled can theoretically affect thedimensions emerging from studies of this type, and Hofstede notes the lack of samples from(former) communist nations. Nevertheless, his study remains to this day the most comprehensivesurvey in terms of the number of national cultures sampled. Another criticism is that the valuessampled were not comprehensive, so that the dimensions identified may not be exhaustive.Hofstede (1991) adds a fifth dimension relating to time perspective.Hofstede’s study (1980) has also been criticized on the basis of the type of samples drawn fromthe national cultures, because all respondents shared a common corporate culture, whichdistinguished them from the broader national populations from which they were drawn. Hofstederegarded his matching strategy as a strength, though doubts can be raised as to whether thoseemployed in servicing and marketing in an industrialized nation are necessarily equivalent tothose in similar roles in a Third World nation. The latter will tend to differ from the former in thatthey may have higher levels of wealth and social status relative to the rest of the nationalpopulation. However, in the absence of random population samples, a sample matching strategyis a necessity (Schwartz, 1994). Evidence for the durability of core cultural dimensions can thenbe shown by the extent that similar patterns of findings emerge from different types of samples,different time periods, and measures from different domains of social behavior.Other Studies of Cultural Dimensions of ValuingThese results leave open the possibility that the measures Hofstede (1980) used may have insome way reflected the Western values of those who designed them. To test for this possibility,Michael Bond in Hong Kong sampled a different domain of values, derived from Chinese culture.He assembled a group of researchers named the Chinese Culture Connection (CCC; 1987), whopresented these to student samples from 22 countries. Respondents were required to rate theimportance of each value. After standardization within each culture, an ecological factor analysisyielded four factors, labelled integration, Confucian work dynamism, human-heartedness, andmoral discipline.Twenty countries were common to this study and Hofstede’s 1983 study, enabling correlationsbetween the Hofstede and CCC factors to be made. Moderate correlations (.50 to .65) werereported between the Hofstede power distance and individualism dimensions and the CCCintegration and moral discipline factors. These four factors loaded together in a second orderfactor analysis, suggesting that they represent aspects of the same underlying dimension ofindividualism-collectivism. The CCC also reported a correlation of .67 between Hofstede’s scoreson masculinity and the CCC human-heartedness factor.The convergence in findings from these two studies is impressive, given that they used measuresderived from two very different cultures and that they used different types of samples. However,cultural variation tapped by Hofstede’s (1980) uncertainty-avoidance dimension was notapproximated by the CCC factors, whereas the Confucian work dynamism factor was unique tothe CCC study. This latter factor, which emphasizes Confucian work ethics such as thrift andpersistence, was found to relate highly and positively to recent data for national economic growth.Bond (1988) reanalyzed the CCC data bank at the level of individuals rather than cultures. Usingfactor analysis, he extracted two factors. The first of these corresponded very closely in terms offactor structure to the CCC integration dimension, with one pole consisting primarily of itemsemphasizing cohesion with others in general and the other pole consisting of items denotingloyalty to more narrowly defined in-groups and their customs. Bond concludes that the“convergence between the cultural and individual levels of analysis indicates the presence of astrong universal” (p. 1012).Schwartz (1992, 1994) surveyed value preferences of individuals in 25 countries, most of whichcontributed two samples, secondary school teachers and students. The 56 values included wereselected on the basis of theoretical reasoning about value types and previous theoretical andempirical studies from both Western and non-Western sources.Schwartz (1992) reported parallel analyses from each of his samples, using smallest spaceanalysis to represent the patterns of intercorrelations between the rated values. The analysesrevealed a remarkable degree of similarity in the value structures of the diverse samples, asindicated by similarity in the ordering of the values in two-dimensional multidimensional scalingsolutions. For the vast majority of the samples, the solutions could be partitioned into regions,such that within each region the values items corresponded to 1 of 10 previously hypothesizedvalue types, namely, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, power,achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction. Moreover, these regions themselvesdisplayed nearly identical patterns of association in each sample, which could be summarized interms of two bipolar dimensions. The first of these was labeled openness to change versusconservation. Openness to change embraced the self-direction and stimulation value types,whereas conservation included the security, conformity, and tradition value types. The otherdimension was labeled self-enhancement versus self-transcendence, with the former including thehedonism, power, and achievement value types, and the latter consisting of the universalism andbenevolence value types.Schwartz (1994) further analyzed his data at the cultural level, using those 45 values previouslyshown to have cross-culturally equivalent meanings for individuals, in an attempt to identify“derived-etic” dimensions of cultural variation (Berry, 1989). As hypothesized, the same twofundamental dimensions of variation were found to structure the value items.The two dimensions reported by Schwartz (1992, 1994) were further divided into seven valuetypes. Three value types broadly corresponded to the openness to change versus conservatismdimension. Conservatism values (e.g., obedience, family security, respect for tradition)emphasized maintenance of the status quo, propriety, and avoidance of actions or inclination ofindividuals that might disturb the traditional order. Intellectual autonomy (e.g., creativity, broadmindedness) and affective autonomy (e.g., pleasure, exciting life) reflected “a more intellectualemphasis on self direction and a more affective emphasis on stimulation and hedonism” (1994, p.102), respectively. Schwartz distinguishes these clusters of values from the definitions ofindividualism and collectivism used by others, though they clearly have some overlap.Four value types were identified corresponding to the self-enhancement versus self-transcendencedimension. Subsumed by the self-enhancement categorization, hierarchy values (e.g., influential,social power) are viewed as “emphasizing the legitimacy of hierarchical role and resourceallocation,” whereas mastery values (e:g:, dating; capable, ambitious) “emphasize active masteryof the social environment through self assertion” (Schwartz, 1994, p. 103). The selftranscendence pole embraces two value types, egalitarian commitment (e.g., freedom, equality,social justice), “values that express concern for the welfare of other people” (p. 104), andharmony (e.g., protect environment, world of beauty), consisting of values “emphasizingharmony with nature” (p. 105). Whereas the two underlying dimensions are (presumably)orthogonal, some of the value types subsumed under these dimensions are not. For example,egalitarian commitment values, which form part of the self-transcendence dimension, are moreclosely related to the openness to change than to the conservatism dimension. This is aconsequence of delineating a seven-fold typology of values in a two-dimensional space.Schwartz (1994) correlated his value types with country scores on Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions.The most important concordance was between the Hofstede power distance and individualismcollectivism dimensions and the Schwartz value types representing the openness to change versusconservatism dimension, with these associations strongest for Schwartz’s student samples.All of the studies reviewed have yielded a factor related to individualism-collectivism. Parallelindividual-level concepts have also been shown to have predictive validity within cultures(Triandis, 1990). It is probably safe to infer that this dimension is the most important yield ofcross-cultural psychology to date, though conceptual dichotomies paralleling individualismcollectivism predate the emergence of the discipline and can be traced back at least to founders ofthe social sciences at the turn of the century such as Tonnies (1887/1963) and Durkheim(1893/1960). Smith and Bond (1993) explore ways in which the individualism-collectivismconstruct can be used to integrate a wide range of cross-cultural social psychological findings,although due attention is also needed to obvious limitations on the predictive validity of anysingle construct in accounting for the existing global diversity of social behavior (e.g., Schwartz,1990).THE TROMPENAARS VALUE QUESTIONNAIRETrompenaars (1985) devised a questionnaire based largely upon the delineation of cultural andpersonal “pattern variables” or value dilemmas identified by Parsons and Shils (1951). Some ofthe questionnaire items elicit values by asking respondents how they would act in a series ofbriefly described imaginary situations. Others provide a forced choice between two valuestatements referring to aspects of organizational behavior or more general issues. Thequestionnaire was originally designed to tap the values of employees from energy and hosierycompanies in nine countries. It has subsequently been used in a very much wider range ofcountries (Trompenaars, 1993). Most cross-cultural studies concerning organizations and theiremployees focus on a small group of nations, in particular the United States, Japan, and a groupof Western European nations (Smith, 1992). The Trompenaars database provides a rareopportunity to examine the values espoused by organization members across a range of nationalcultures as broad as that sampled by Hofstede (1980).The Trompenaars (1993) questionnaire includes items addressing seven hypothesized dimensionsof cultural valuing. The first five of these are derived directly from Parsons and Shils (1951),namely universalism-particularism, achievement-ascription, individualism-collectivism,affectivity-neutrality, and specificity-diffuseness. Choice of the remaining dimensions wasinfluenced by the value survey of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), but the actual measure ofinternal-external control that was used is that of Rotter (1966), and the measure of timeperspective is derived from Cottle (1968). Additional items in the questionnaire refer to aspects ofmanagement and organizational structuring. This last group of items is not seen as tapping aseparate domain of values but as illustrating the manner in which more general values are appliedto day-to-day organizational problems.The present study concerns primarily the first three of these proposed dimensions, together withthe management and organization items. Data derived from the Rotter (1966) locus of controlscale are examined in a separate publication (Smith, Trompenaars, & Dugan, 1995). Data fromthe remaining items do not lend themselves readily to the type of data analyses used in thisarticle.The concept of universalism-particularism is derived from the work of Parsons and Shils (1951).They distinguish two types of value standards that may guide behavior of persons or of wholecultures. Persons relying on particularistic value standards will emphasize relationships toparticular people to a greater extent than persons with universalistic value standards, who will beguided relatively more often by standards independent of specific social relationships. “Theparticularistic actor predominantly values interpersonal ties, while the universalistic actor valuesabstract societal expectations” (Trompenaars, 1985, p. 84). Parsons and Shils saw individualismcollectivism (which they termed self vs. collectivity) and universalism-particularism as separatedimensions. Given the previous discussion that emphasized the importance of in-groups incollectivist societies, it is more plausible to suppose that particularist societies will also becollectivist. There is less reason to expect that a universalist society would necessarily beindividualistic, because this would only be the case where the universal principles to be followedendorsed individualist values. These considerations suggest some association between the twodimensions but not a total overlap. Indeed, this prediction is supported by the results of Zurcher,Medow, and Zurcher (1965) who found Mexican bank employees much more particularistic thanU.S. bank employees, using the questionnaire devised by Stouffer and Toby (1951), on which thepresent measure is also based.Parsons and Shils’s (1951) concept of achievement-ascription refers to the characteristics ofpersons that determine their status. Achieved statuses can be “filled” through ability, effort, andcompetition, so that social mobility is possible. For example, the status of an athlete will beachieved. Ascribed statuses, on the other hand, are largely predicated on who a person is.Excellent examples are provided by the British monarchy and the Indian caste system.The third domain of values in Trompenaars’s (1985) questionnaire was individualismcollectivism, a concept that we have already discussed. The definitions provided here make itlikely that there is also some linkage of individualism-collectivism and achievement-ascription.Striving for achieved status is much more likely to occur in individualist societies than incollectivist societies. The findings of Williams and Best (1990) that the relative rigidity of sexroles is higher in more collectivist cultures also fits into this conception.HYPOTHESESWe can now state our hypotheses as to likely structures and interrelationships among theavailable measures, drawing upon the results of the various earlier surveys and the precedingdiscussion of Trompenaars’s (1985) intentions in designing his questionnaire. The first issue atstake is whether or not the dimensions found can be predicted on the basis of earlier work:Hypothesis 1a: A dimension of cultural variation will be found that is significantlyrelated to individualism-collectivism/power distance.Hypothesis 1b: A second dimension, related to masculinity-femininity, humanheartedness, or self-enhancement/self-transcendence, can also be expected.Because the subjects of this survey are organizational employees, we may test the face validity ofthe predicted individualism-collectivism dimension by examining preferences for different typesof organizational behavior in countries located at different points along the dimension:Hypothesis 2: The collectivism pole of an individualism-collectivism/power distancedimension will be associated with items concerning preference for closer bosssubordinate relations, higher company involvement in employees’ lives, preferences forascription over achievement values, and a relatively particularistic perspective.To establish the external validity of emergent dimensions, tests of their relationship toindependent country-level measures are required.Hypothesis 3: The ordering of nations on dimensions related to individualismcollectivism will correlate with indexes of modernity such as per capita gross nationalproduct, literacy rates, and life expectancy.METHODSUBJECTSThe 8,841 respondents used in this study were drawn from 43 nations. They were selected from alarger data bank comprising 10,993 employees of business organizations from 58 nations. Thedata were subject to several screening processes. A total of 9,920 employees replied to a completeor near complete form of the questionnaire described below, with the remainder taking asubstantially shortened version. Respondents taking the shortened version were excluded from thestudy. The data from 12 nations were also excluded because there were fewer than 25 cases foreach of these countries. Three further countries were excluded, namely Nepal, Egypt, andUruguay. A back-translation revealed substantial inaccuracies in the Nepalese translation that hadbeen used, and there was reason to doubt whether the Egyptian data collection had beencompetently executed. The 36 Uruguayan responses were found to be extreme outliers on thedistribution of many variables. They were excluded on the basis of statistical tests, to be reportedin the Results section, which indicate that the extremity of the scores make it probable thatUruguay was not accurately represented in the sample. Four hundred thirty-seven individualrespondents with more than four data points missing on the 39 input variables, and 29 whosecoding for gender was missing, were also excluded.Of the remaining respondents, 2,269 (24.2%) were categorized as having lower socioeconomicstatus, such as manual and clerical workers, and 5,082 (54.2%) were categorized as managerial orprofessional workers (predominantly the former). A further 2,025 (21.6%) respondents could notbe categorized at this point for occupational status, most often because the version of thequestionnaire that they had received did not request this information.A breakdown of the remaining sample sizes for each country by gender is shown in Table 1. Thesample overrepresents European nations (n = 24), with 72.4% of all respondents beingEuropeans. African, Asian, and South American countries are underrepresented, constituting3.2% (n = 3), 17.2% (n = 11), and 4.7% (n = 3) of the sample, respectively.The overall sample is also biased by gender, with males constituting 68.9% of the total.Aggregating data by country and giving unit weighting to each country, the overall proportion ofmales is .68, with a standard deviation of .14. Sixteen country samples include 75% or more ofmales. Countries with relatively high proportions of females (40% or more) are Argentina,Bulgaria, former Czechoslovakia, former East Germany, Finland, Hungary, Indonesia, Mexico,the Philippines, Rumania, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), and theformer Yugoslavia. Thus the gender distribution is much more equal in the former communistbloc countries than in most of the other countries.Mean age by country ranges from a low of 26.5 years in the former Yugoslavia to 43.2 years inthe Norwegian sample. Aggregating the data by country, mean age is 36.1, with a standarddeviation of 4.2. The sample is therefore relatively homogeneous in terms of age distribution.RESEARCH INSTRUMENTSUniversalistic Versus Particularistic ObligationsThe universalism-particularism construct was measured using modified versions of four itemsdevised by Stouffer and Toby (1951). They used stories describing life situations in whichindividuals are asked to state their preference between their obligations of friendship to anindividual (particularistic obligations) and their obligations to society (universalistic obligations).For example, the first item (Unpa 1) describes a situation where the respondent is required toimagine he or she is in a car being driven by a close friend (but not a relative). The friend hits apedestrian while exceeding the 20-mile-per-hour speed limit, and there are no witnesses. Thefriend’s lawyer says that if the respondent testifies that the friend was within the legal speed limit,it may save the friend from serious consequences. The respondent is required to report what he orshe would probably do in this situation in view of his or her obligations to the friend and theobligations of a sworn witness. Would or would not the respondent testify that the friend wasexceeding the speed limit? The respondent is also required to state whether the friend in the givensituation has a “definite right,” “some right,” or “no right” to expect the respondent to testify intheir favor. Thus the items tap both behavioral intentions and perceptions of norms.The other three dilemmas have a similar structure. One (Unpa2) concerns a situation where thefriend in this case runs a restaurant and the respondent is asked to imagine that he or she is ajournalist who reviews restaurants. The food is poor. Should the respondent report the truth of thematter or not? In another (Unpa3), the respondent is asked to imagine that he or she is a doctor foran insurance company. The friend in this instance is being examined for eligibility for moreinsurance. The examination reveals some health problems. Should the doctor ignore these for thesake of his or her friend’s needs? In the final situation (Unpa4), the subject is an insider dealing infinancial markets, where a friend will be financially mined unless tipped off by the respondentabout the outcome of a confidential meeting.Achievement Versus Ascription OrientationThe six items for measuring achievement-ascription were designed by Trompenaars (1985) andare freely adapted from measures used by Karl (1965) and by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961).These items were presented in the form of five-point Likert scales with strongly agree andstrongly disagree anchoring the endpoints. The statements were as follows: “The most importantthing in life is to think and act in the ways that best suit the way you really are, even if you don’tget things done” (Achasc 1); “The respect a person gets is highly dependent on the family out ofwhich they come” (Achasc2); “When someone is born, the success they are going to have isalready in the cards, so they might as well accept it and not fight against it” (Achasc3); “A childshould be taught from infancy to be more gentle with women than with men” (Achasc4); “It isimportant for managers to be older than most of their subordinates” (Achasc5); “Older peopleshould be more respected than younger people” (Achasc6).Individualism-Collectivism and Conceptions of Organizational StructureA further 25 questions were devised to measure facets of individualism-collectivism and variousways of conceiving of the organizational structure of business organizations. Several of theindividualism-collectivism items were heavily modified versions of those used by Kluckhohn andStrodtbeck (1961). All these items were phrased in the form of dilemmas, with a dichotomousforced-choice response format.Examples of these dilemmas are given where they prove relevant in the Results section of thearticle. In general terms, the topics covered include the extent of company involvement in the lifeof individual employees; for example, in providing housing or organizing social functions, theworking relationships of subordinates with their superiors, optimal modes of departmentalorganization and job assignment, valued characteristics of managers, ways of dealing withunsatisfactory work of employees, and the nature of contractual obligations.Other MeasuresThe questionnaire included an additional 40 items referring to the other four domains of culturalvaluing postulated by Trompenaars (1985). Data from each of these will be included in thepresent analysis: mean scores on the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale, time perspective,affectivity-neutrality, and preference for specific versus diffuse social relationships. The timeperspective score used here is derived from a procedure used by Cottle (1968). The respondent isasked to list his or her 10 most important life experiences and to indicate whether they fall in thepast, the present, or the future. Scores for affectivity-neutrality and for preference for specificversus diffuse relationships were both derived from different responses to the same fourquestions, which asked directly about preferred type of relationships with others. Scores on thesedimensions are thus not independent of one another. Respondents also reported their sex, age,employer, job function, and educational level.DATA ANALYSISAll items were translated into the required languages. The method of back-translation (e.g.,Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973) was employed for most of the translations. In the few caseswhere it was not, the English and translated versions of the questionnaire were examined andwhere necessary amended by bilingual company representatives. The questionnaires wereadministered to respondents at varying dates between 1982 and 1993, using the language versionsindicated in Table 1. In most countries, subjects were participants in brief training coursesconcerning management in cross-cultural contexts. Questionnaires were completed prior toparticipation in the training.Responses to the 39 relevant questionnaire items were used as the primary basis of the analysis.Although within-subjects data standardization is an increasingly favored procedure in this type ofstudy, this was not done in the present case. There were two reasons for this. First, the forcedchoice response format of almost all items eliminates the risk of cultural variations in the use ofmore or less extreme response categories, which is likely where Liken-type-scale responses areused. Second, the range of questionnaire items included spanned a variety of scales constructedon the basis of hypothesized differences grounded in theory. To standardize across scales wouldbe very likely to eliminate variance that is substantive rather than artifactual.The scores for each item were first aggregated by nation, yielding a 39 (items) by 43 (nations)data matrix. Each item was scaled so that all had a potential range of between 0 and 100. Theitems with the most variability should therefore contribute most to the differences in dissimilaritycoefficients. The SPSS proximities program was used to compute dissimilarity measures usingthe City Black metric (Coxon, 1982) between each pair of nations on the basis of their scores onthe 39 items. One feature of this metric is that equal dissimilarity coefficients are assigned to twoobjects that are (a) two units apart on each of two variables, or (b) one unit apart on one variableand three units apart on the other (Everitt, 1980). A further feature is that multidimenstionalscaling (MDS) solutions based on this metric do not remain invariant under rigid rotations. Theresulting dimensions account for more variation in the proximities data than any variationresulting from rotation of the solution. This is not true of Euclidean metrics (Coxon, 1982).The symmetric proximities matrix provided the input to the SPSS Alscal MDS package, whichwas programmed to produce nonmetric scaling with the primary approach to ties. The resultingMDS configuration was then interpreted using linear multiple regression (Kruskal & Wish, 1976).This procedure enabled us to examine the association between the configuration and the originalvariables from which the proximities data were calculated. This method also facilitates validationof the resulting configuration by relating it to other measures not used in obtaining thedissimilarities, such as dimensions of cultural variation revealed from other studies. In thisprocedure, the various measures are regressed onto the coordinates of the MDS configuration.Each of the original 39 measures was used as a separate criterion variable. In addition, a numberof other variables included in the questionnaire were entered, such as proportion of women andmean age of sample. Hofstede’s (1983) country scores for his four dimensions of culturalvariation were also entered, as were Schwartz’s (1994) country scores on seven dimensions ofcultural values, and scores for the dimension of “Confucian work dynamism” identified by theChinese Culture Connection (1987). Finally, a number of economic and demographiccharacteristics of nations were used as criterion measures, including indexes of average income,literacy rates, life expectancy, proportion of economically active women, proportion ofpopulation engaged in agricultural production, and proportion of Christians in the population(Economist book of vital world statistics, 1990). Christianity was used as an index of religiousaffiliation because the sample contains many more Christians than adherents of other majorreligions.For a variable to facilitate a reasonable interpretation of an MDS dimension, it is desirable thatmultiple correlations should exceed the .01 level of significance and preferably exceed .70 inmagnitude (Kruskal & Wish, 1976). A large number of measures in this study do exceed thesecriteria. A further condition is that variables used to interpret dimensions should have highregression weights for those dimensions. We have predominantly used measures that havedirection cosines greater than .80 (direction cosines are regression weights normalized, so thattheir sums of squares equal unity). However, this condition was not fulfilled in relation to thethird dimension of the solution described below.As an additional check, the results of the MDS analysis were compared with the results from afactor analysis using the same input variables.RESULTSMDS solutions of dimensionality one through four were computed. The Kruskal stress formulaone and R[sup 2] values, respectively, were .097 and .942 for the four-dimensionalsolution, .132and .910 for the three-dimensional solution, .201 and .841 for the two-dimensional solution, and.325 and .714 for the one-dimensional solution. Examination of a plot of stress againstdimensionality revealed no discernible “elbow,” a feature that has sometimes been used toindicate the correct number of dimensions to extract (e.g., Kruskal & Wish, 1976). In choosingwhich dimensionality gives the most satisfactory solution, it was clear that the stress value for theone-dimensional representation was too high. The four-dimensional solution was rejected becausethe fourth dimension of the four-dimensional solution was not readily interpretable eitherintuitively or through the more objective criteria discussed earlier. The choice then was betweenthe two- and three-dimensional solutions. The three-dimensional solution revealed someinterpretable structure that was not present in the two-dimensional solution and was thereforeretained despite the fact that the extra dimension only accounts for a further 7% of variation in theproximities data. It can be noted that nothing in the two-dimensional solution is lost by opting forthe three-dimensional solution, because the former is largely a perpendicular projection of thefirst two dimensions of the latter. A comparison of the MDS solution with the factor analyticsolution showed that where two principal components were extracted and rotated using thevarimax method, and factor scores calculated, the product-moment correlation between countryscores on the first factor and the first dimension of the MDS solution was +.98, and between thecorresponding scores for the second dimension, -.93. Where three factors were extracted androtated, the convergence between the solutions was less impressive. The product-momentcorrelations between the corresponding dimensions were calculated as +.65, -.68, and +.68 for thefirst, second, and third dimensions, respectively.The sample used to generate this three-dimensional solution is a relatively heterogeneous one interms of variables such as seniority, age, and gender. To check whether or not demographicheterogeneity has contributed to the definition of the emerging dimensions, additional analyseswere conducted upon demographically defined subsamples, and these will be reported at relevantpoints below.The naming of dimensions is as much an art as a science. It may help the reader to follow ourpresentation if we state at this point that our ultimate conclusion will be that Dimension 1represents conservatism versus egalitarian commitment (terms that are taken from Schwartz,1994) and that Dimension 2 is best represented as utilitarian involvement versus loyalinvolvement.A plot of the first two dimensions against each other is shown in Figure 1. The figure shows someclear geographical and sociopolitical grouping that can be observed without recourse to moreobjective interpretive criteria. A striking feature is the clustering of the former communist nationsof Eastern Europe in or adjacent to the lower left quadrant. China (still formally a communistnation) also appears in this quadrant. The lower right quadrant shows a clear clustering ofNorthern European nations. Toward the positive pole of Dimension 1, and located around themidpoint of the second dimension, there is a cluster of English-speaking and Latin nations. Afurther cluster of nations are situated above 0.4 on the second dimension and around the 0.0 pointof the first dimension. These are predominantly Asian and African nations, though two of themore collectivist European nations, Greece and Turkey, are also located within this cluster. Therelation of Dimensions 1 and 2 with Dimension 3 is not shown, but the most notable features arethe raising of Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong toward the positive pole, and the lowering ofIndonesia, the United Arab Emirates, and Rumania toward the negative pole.Table 2 shows the regression weights based on the three-dimensional solution, together withdirection cosines and multiple correlations. These indicate the extent to which the variousmeasures can be predicted by the three dimensions singly and in combination. The measures inthe table are those that were included as input to the SPSS proximities program. In examiningthese items we may see which of them best define the dimensions of the MDS solution.DIMENSION 1The items that are associated with the first dimension of the MDS solution are quite numerous.The items measuring achievement-ascription orientation are very strongly associated with thisfirm dimension. A particularly good predictor is Achasc4, the item stating that “a child should betaught from infancy to be more gentle with women than with men.” However, the composite ofthe six items (ACHASC) is an even better predictor of Dimension 1 scores, with a multiplecorrelation of .91 and direction cosine of .92. Thus most of the variation of country samples onthe first dimension can be explained by the scores on these six items. The samples situated towardthe positive pole of the dimension tend to value achieved status over ascribed status, whereasthose toward the negative pole favor ascribed over achieved status. The country-level alphacoefficient for the achievement-ascription scale, a simple summation of country means for the sixitems, was calculated as 0.83.The items that were designed to measure the concept of universalism-particularism also loadhighly on this first dimension, though there are also smaller correlations with the other twodimensions, particularly the third. Country samples situated toward the positive pole of thedimension tend to be more universalistic, whereas those toward the negative pole are moreparticularistic. It should be recalled that these items measured both behavioral intentions andperceptions of norms. In the case of each of the four scenarios, the perceptions of whether thefriend has a right to expect favorable treatment are associated more closely with the dimensionthan the behavioral intention. The index labeled RIGHTS in Table 2 is a weighted summation ofeach of the four items pertaining to the friend’s right to preferential treatment. The country-levelalpha coefficient for this scale is 0.91.Next, there are a number of perhaps less coherent forced-choice items that also relate strongly tothe first dimension. Question 18 has a very high association, as can be seen from the multiplecorrelation and direction cosines. This item asks respondents whether or not they believe that acompany should take some responsibility for the housing of employees or whether this taskshould rest solely on the employee. Countries toward the positive pole tend to believe thathousing is the sole responsibility of the employee. There may be no directly logical reason whyprovision of company housing should covary with ascribed status and high particularism, but thepattern of further responses presented below indicates a preference for a strong and long-terminvolvement by the employer in many aspects of the employee’s life.The response pattern to Question 18 is mirrored somewhat in that of Questions 16 and 19, thoughthe relationships are considerably weaker. Question 19 concerns the ways in which companiesshould determine the income of their employees. In one view, the company should take accountof the size of the employee’s family, whereas the other view suggests that the employee “shouldbe paid entirely according to the work he is doing for the company.” This latter view is moreconsistent with an emphasis on achieved status. Question 16 concerns the impending marriage ofa colleague. In one view, the company should be involved in throwing a party to celebrate themarriage, whereas the alternative view emphasizes that marriage is a “family affair” and that thecompany should not be responsible for organizing a party. The measure in Table 2 labeledPATERNALISM is a summation of the four questionnaire items (11, 16, 18, and 19) that refer toaspects of company paternalism in the life of the individual. It is highly associated with this firstdimension.Question 23 asked how employees should be compensated for working overtime. One response,favored by country samples at the negative pole of the dimension, suggests that working overtimebelongs to the job and that the boss’s appreciation is reward enough, whereas countries at thepositive pole believe that overtime should be financially rewarded and regulated contractually.This appears conceptually consistent with the meaning of universal-ism-particularism andachievement-ascription.Question 21, which also loads highly on the first dimension, refers to the organizational structureof work environments. One view, endorsed more often by samples at the negative pole, suggeststhat “the main reason for having an organizational structure is so that everyone knows who hasauthority over whom,” whereas the opposing response is that “the main reason for having anorganizational structure is so that everyone knows how functions are allocated and coordinated.”The emphasis on formalized hierarchy is characteristic of societies where ascribed status is moreemphatic.Question 13 asks what makes a good manager. In one view, endorsed more often in nations at thepositive pole, the manager facilitates the execution of tasks but intervenes only when necessary.The other view endorses the idea of the manager as a paternalistic figure, “a kind of father” who“guides his subordinates continuously,” gets subordinates working well together, and knows theanswers to most problems that crop up. Question 10 follows a similar pattern. Here respondentsare asked to imagine a situation where they are given an order by a boss that they believe to bewrong. Samples toward the positive pole of the dimension think that the individual should be ableto point out the mistake to the boss, whereas at the negative pole, the view is that “in most casesthe boss is right. Even if he is wrong, one should do what he tells you to do, otherwise there willbe problems.” Responses to Question 10 also correlate moderately with the second dimension.Thus, if we consider these items for the moment as referring to power distance, then the highestpower distance will be found at the upper left quadrant of the projection of the first twodimensions, whereas the lowest will be found at the lower fight quadrant. The direction of fit tothe solution is the same as that of the country scores for Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions ofindividualism-collectivism and power distance, which are discussed a little later.A weighted combination of the measures labeled ACHASC, RIGHTS, and PATERNALISMobtained a multiple correlation with the first dimension of .98 in a multiple regression analysis,thus explaining virtually all of the variation upon it.DIMENSION 2The items that are associated with Dimension 2 are primarily items that Trompenaars (1985)intended to measure the concept of individualism-collectivism. For greater clarity, they are hereidentified as contrasting involvement in a group or organization on the basis of loyalty or on thebasis of utilitarian considerations. The measures most closely associated with the seconddimension are Questions 39 and 8, as evidenced by the high multiple correlations and the highdirection cosines. Question 39 poses the dilemma of what a family should do with a father’sbusiness when he has died. Should the children keep the business and work together to improve it(loyal response), or should they sell their individual shares to set up on their own (utilitarianresponse). Those country samples scoring high on the second dimension were more likely to optfor the loyal response, whereas the converse was true for the samples located toward the negativepole of the dimension:Question 8 invited respondents to consider whether the responsibility for a fault in an installationcaused by negligence of a team member should be apportioned to that individual alone, orwhether the responsibility should be carried by the group (“this time one member has made amistake, the next time someone else will make one”). Question 7 asked the sample what would bemost prominent in their thoughts if they were to be promoted, either the “new group of peoplewith whom you will work,” or “the increased work responsibility and the higher income.”Another item associated closely with the second dimension of the solution is Question 36. Thisasked respondents whether they would prefer to work in a job where “everybody works togetherand where you don’t get individual credit” (loyal response), or in a job “where you are part of acompany that allows everybody to work individually and where individual credit can be received”(utilitarian response).A further item loading on this dimension is Question 20, which asked the respondent whetherthey thought the best representation of the goals of a company was, on one hand, that “the onlyreal goal of a company is making profit,” or, on the other hand, that a company “besides makingprofit, has a goal of attaining the well-being of various stakeholders such as its employees,customers etc.”For Question 17, respondents were asked to consider the situation in which the job performanceof a long-standing employee of 15 years has dropped to an unsatisfactory level- for the past year,and where “there are no reasons to believe that this situation will improve.” The respondent has toselect from two options. In the first, job performance is the sole criterion for dismissal, whereasthe second suggests that the employee’s past performance and previous years of service should beconsidered, because “one has to take into account the company’s responsibility for his life.”Finally, Question 37 refers to a situation in which local government comes up with a project toclose the street on which you live to all traffic. The street members are to send a delegate to ameeting where a decision on the project will be made. How should the delegate be chosen? Theresponse alternatives are that “it is better that all the people in the street meet and discuss thingsuntil almost everyone agrees on the same person,” versus “it is better that all people in the streetmeet, names be put up, a vote taken then send a man who gets the majority of the votes even ifthere are several people who are still against this person.”The relationship of these items to the conceptions of individualism-collectivism discussed earlieris self-evident, but because this is true also for some items loading on Dimension 1, alternativeterms have been preferred here. In Table 2, the measure labeled INVOLVEMENT is a summationof Questions 8, 17, 20, 36, 37, and 39. The correlation of this measure with the second dimensionis -.85.DIMENSION 3The third dimension is not so easily defined. There are fewer variables that correlate significantlywith it, and those that do are associated at a much lower level than is the case for either of the firsttwo dimensions. Furthermore, most of the variables that load highest on the third dimension arealso associated, more strongly in some cases, with one or the other of the first two dimensions.According to Kruskal and Wish’s (1976) guidelines for the interpretation of MDS dimensions,attempts to define the third dimension are therefore problematic. The difficulties of a dimensionalinterpretation are unsurprising, given the distribution of cases on the third dimension, whichshows most cases clustered around the origin. However, we shall describe the measures that aremost closely associated with this third dimension.From Table 2, we can see that there is a small tendency for country samples with high positivescores on Dimension 3 to give more particularistic responses. Respondents from these countriesalso tend to think that a department’s best work is done when members agree on objectives, andthen the individual is left to decide how these are implemented, rather than the opposing view thatthe manager should set objectives and constantly direct employees in their work (Question 15).Another item with a moderate loading is Question 36, which has already been described inconnection with Dimension 2. High scoring samples on Dimension 3 state that they would preferto work in a job where people can work individually and where individual credit can be received,rather than a job where everyone works together and individual credit is not given for one’s work.Finally, we can observe a small tendency (though not entirely consistent) for samples higher onDimension 3 to be oriented more toward achievement than ascription. This is most evident onitem Achasc6, which states that “older people should be more respected than younger people.”Discussion of what these items have in common is best deferred until we have examined furthercorrelates of Dimension 3.RELATIONSHIP WITH VARIABLES NOT USED IN CONSTRUCTING THE MDSSOLUTIONHaving established the nature of the dimensions that emerged from the data, we are now in aposition to examine how these dimensions relate to characterizations of the relevant nations andtheir distinctive cultural values that are available from other sources. These relationships areportrayed in Table 3.Possible Effects of Demographic Qualities of the SampleWe must consider first whether the solution found has been in any way influenced by thenonrandomness with which respondents were selected. Two characteristics of the actual countrysampler mean age and proportion of women, are associated primarily with the first dimension.Samples tend to be older toward the positive pole and to contain fewer women. Proportion ofwomen is also significantly negatively correlated with the second dimension. The correlation withgender can be attributed to the considerably larger proportion of women in samples from theformer communist nations of Eastern Europe, which as we have seen cluster together toward thenegative pole of the first dimension. This finding suggests the hypothesis that these countries arecontiguous in the multidimensional space because of their different gender distributions.To address this possibility, a further MDS analysis was computed using country samples with 25or more cases and based only on males (n = 39 countries). The resulting configuration is virtuallyidentical to that presented here, with the product-moment correlations between the correspondingdimensions being .96, -.89, and -.85 for the first, second, and third dimensions, respectively. As aconsequence, we should reject the hypothesis that gender differences in the values measured herehave strongly influenced the dimensions that emerged. It appears more likely that the associationof gender with Dimensions 1 and 2 is a consequence of differences between countries in thesexual division of labor.It is necessary to clarify in a similar way the reasons for the association between age andDimension 1. An additional MDS analysis was conducted using 42 countries within which theoldest and youngest cases were deleted until a mean was achieved between ages 33 and 36. Thiswas impossible within the Norwegian sample. The resulting solution yielded three dimensionscorrelating .96, .87, and .88 with the solution based on the total sample. This indicates that theassociation of Dimension 1 is not because those who are older endorse egalitarian commitmentrather than conservatism; indeed, it would be surprising if it were so. The explanation is likely tobe that the samples from countries endorsing conservatism were younger, no doubt because manydeveloping countries have a younger population than the European and North American countrieswhere egalitarian commitment is more endorsed.Respondents’ seniority was not associated with any of the three dimensions, but to test furtherwhether the demographic heterogeneity of the sample has affected the dimensions found, anotherMDS analysis was conducted using only the 5,981 respondents who were of managerial status,omitting the more junior respondents. The emergent dimensions correlated .96, .92, and .90 withthe solution from the full sample. There is therefore no evidence that diversity of country samplein age, gender, or status has influenced the dimensions found.Indexes of Modernity and Religious AffiliationA number of variables that can be taken as indexes of “modernity” are moderately associated withthe dimensions of the MDS solution. These include life expectancy, literacy rates, proportionengaged in agriculture, national income per capita, proportion of the population of highersocioeconomic status, and the proportion of the population economically active. In general, thestrongest relationships are with Dimension 2, with which modernity is negatively related.Modernity is also positively associated, though less strongly, with Dimension 1. The associationsof these measures with Dimension 3 are less clear, though life expectancy, literacy, and economicactivity rates are positively associated with it, and the proportion engaged in agriculture isnegatively related.All of the measures of modernity are markedly nonnormal in distribution, and transformations dolittle to improve the observed associations, with the exception of a logarithmic transformation ofper capita income, which strengthens relationships with the dimensions somewhat. There are anumber of quite marked outliers, which also tends to attenuate the observed associations. Forexample, the United Arab Emirates and Singapore score highly on several indexes of modernity,but they also score highly on collectivist values. Among European nations, the same can be saidof the location in the MDS space of Austria. Conversely, India and Mexico score less highly oncollectivist values than would be expected on the basis of their modernity scores. Thus we canconclude that there is only a moderate relationship between modernity and the scaling of thevalues observed in the present sample.Proportion of Christians in the population is also moderately associated with the solution.Countries toward the positive pole of Dimension 1 tend to have a higher proportion of Christians.However, this measure is also quite strongly and negatively related to the second dimension.Therefore, the lower right-hand quadrant of the projection of Dimensions 1 and 2 has the highestproportion of Christians, and the upper left quadrant has the fewest. Cases that markedly divergefrom this pattern are Japan, China, India, Thailand, and Turkey, among predominantly nonChristian nations, and the former Yugoslavia, Rumania, Greece, and the Philippines, amongcountries with a higher proportion of Christians. These countries in particular would be locateddifferently in the multidimensional space if there was a closer relationship between adherence toChristianity and the values measured here.Turning now to dimensions that have been found in other prominent studies of values, there is ahigh association between Hofstede’s (1983) dimension of individualism-collectivism and both ofthe first two dimensions of the MDS solution. As with the indexes of modernity described earlier,the strongest relationship is with the second dimension, though there is also a moderateassociation with the first. The countries toward the positive pole of the second dimension tend tohave a higher Hofstede collectivism score, as do countries toward the negative pole of the firstdimension. It should be remembered, however, that Hofstede’s sample did not include anyEastern European nations, whereas these proved crucial in defining both the first and seconddimensions of the present results.The Hofstede (1980) scores for power distance are also related to both of the first twodimensions, but less strongly so than for his individualism index. This study provides no directconfirmation of Hofstede’s other two dimensions, namely, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance,despite the inclusion of some items that do seem theoretically coherent with his conception of themeaning of these constructs.It was noted earlier that the small data sample from Uruguay was dropped from the analysesreported above. In fact, a parallel series of 44-nation analyses was also run, including theUruguay sample. When this was done, the correlations with the Hofstede (1983) dimensions aresubstantially weakened. The multiple correlation with individualism becomes .76, yielding areduction in R[sup 2] of .08, proportionately a very large decrease caused by the inclusion of just37 cases within the sample of 8,878.Examination of residuals statistics for the regression of individualism on the three dimensions ofthe MDS solution clearly show Uruguay to be an outlying case. The value of Cook’s distance(Glantz & Slinker, 1990) for Uruguay is 1.81, compared with the next largest value of 0.25 forIndonesia, with the mean Cook’s distance for all cases 0.08. According to Glantz and Slinker, aCook’s distance of 1 indicates a case that is worth investigating as an outlying case. On thiscriterion, Uruguay is clearly an outlier. Until such time as further Uruguayan responses areavailable to check whether the present small sample is in any way representative, it was judgedappropriate to discount the Uruguayan data.Sixteen countries are common to this study and those sampled by Schwartz (1994). Only one ofSchwartz’s value dimensions is significantly associated with the dimensions found in this study,namely, egalitarian commitment, which lines up primarily with the first dimension of the MDSsolution presented here, whereas conservatism falls just short of significance.Only 18 countries are common to this study and that by the Chinese Culture Connection (1987).The country scores for Confucian work dynamism abstracted from their study can be predictedfrom scores on the third of the dimensions presented here. The presence of a significantcorrelation with the third dimension is unsurprising when we remember that South Korea, Japan,and Hong Kong are the most extreme positive scorers on this dimension and that they arecountries identified by the Chinese Culture Connection as scoring high on the values that theylabel as Confucian work dynamism. Of the other CCC dimensions, the integration factor scorescan be predicted from a weighted composite of scores on Dimensions 1 and 3. As with Hofstede’s(1980) masculinity factor, their was no significant association between our configurationand the CCC human-heartedness dimension.Other MeasuresRotter’s (1966) locus of control scale country mean scores are primarily associated with the firstdimension of the solution, with countries toward the positive pole tending to provide moreinternal responses. The measure of time perspective included in the Trompenaars (1985)questionnaire is significantly associated with the third dimension. As described earlier,respondents were invited to recall or look forward to the 10 most important experiences in theirlife and to categorize these according to whether they happened or will happen in the distant past,recent past, present, near future, or distant future. Country samples scoring highly and positivelyon the third dimension reported more experiences in the near future. The associations are not verystrong, but they are consistent with the findings of the CCC (1987), which identified a strongfuture orientation as one facet of the cluster of values they defined as Confucian work dynamism.DISCUSSIONOur results provide substantial encouragement for the view that there is considerable replicabilityin the results emerging from value surveys sampling relatively large numbers of nations. Thepresent sample has the weakness that country samples are demographically diverse, but checksthat have been made through analyses of subsamples indicate that this is unlikely to havesubstantially distorted the dimensions found. The three dimensions that emerged are significantlyrelated to nation scores collected at widely differing times, and among quite different types ofsamples, by earlier researchers. From this perspective, the methodological weaknesses inherent ineach particular study are a source of collective strength: Dimensions that emerge consistentlydespite such variations are plainly robust.The dimensions found to show some relationship with those found in this study have beenindividualism-collectivism, power distance, egalitarian commitment, integration, and Confucianwork dynamism. Hypothesis la is therefore supported. The linkage of these dimensions withpreference for specific organizational behaviors and country-level demographic indicators alsogive support to Hypotheses 2 and 3.The remaining dimensions identified by Hofstede (1980), namely uncertainty avoidance andmasculinity-femininity, are not readily apparent. Hypothesis 1b must be rejected. Three possiblereasons for this can be examined. First, it could be the case that the sample of nations included inthe present survey brings other aspects of cultural variability to the fore and leads to the loss ofuncertainty avoidance and masculinity-femininity as salient dimensions. Second, the presentquestionnaire was not designed to tap these dimensions directly, and it would be unsurprising ifthey were therefore less salient in the data. Third, the dimensions might have become lessimportant over time.The first of these explanations has substantial plausibility. The present sample and the Hofstede(1980) sample differ principally by the inclusion in the present study of nine former communistcountries. As Figure 1 makes clear, these nine nations are crucial in defining the poles of both ofthe first two dimensions found in the MDS solution obtained. It is interesting that if thesecountries are covered up in the figure, then the basic structure goes from the lower right to theupper left quadrant, which is the best fit of our solution to the Hofstede individualism and powerdistance dimensions. Eight of the nine ex-communist samples show a pattern of values that isindividualist, ascriptive, and particularist. Pursuing this intriguing result further, we find that ifthe communist and ex-communist nations are deleted from the MDS analysis, then the scores onthe first dimension of the new solution correlate -.80 (p