Introduction: a new focus on individual-level cross-cultural analysis
In today’s complex policy landscape, effectively incorporating cultural factors is essential for impactful decision-making. Traditional frameworks, such as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, have offered valuable insights at national and organizational levels but often fall short when used to understand individual-level behaviors.
This blog explores recent advancements in cross-cultural analysis that address these limitations, presenting more precise approaches for individual-level cultural diagnostics. By enhancing the validity and reliability of these tools, policymakers can design interventions that resonate with diverse populations, ultimately strengthening policy impact and effectiveness.
The importance of culture in policy evaluation
Culture plays a critical role in international development and public policy, influencing how studies are designed, interpreted, and applied. Broadly defined, culture encompasses “a set of socially transmitted and learned behavior patterns, beliefs, and institutions.” [1]
Recognizing these cultural influences is essential, as they carry implicit biases that can impact policy recommendations. Traditionally, Culturally Responsive Evaluation (CRE) [2] has aimed to embed cultural sensitivity within research design and analysis. Yet, using culture as a diagnostic tool goes a step further, enabling policymakers to understand sociocultural contexts before crafting policy.
A vital question then arises: is assessing “culture” as a diagnostic tool appropriate and effective for understanding and predicting the complexity of individual behaviors and environmental constraints? Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory, developed by Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede in the 1970s, is a prominent framework developed with this purpose in mind. By identifying a set of core cultural dimensions, it offers a means of predicting group and interpersonal behaviors at both organizational and national levels. [3]
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: foundational yet limited
Since the 1970s, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions[4] have served as a foundational framework for understanding cultural patterns at national and organizational levels. The six dimensions (Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation, and Indulgence vs. Restraint) offer insights into societal values and behavioral norms.
Originally developed to evaluate corporate cultures within multinational contexts, these dimensions have since been applied to fields such as public policy and international development. However, using Hofstede’s framework to predict individual behaviors has limitations. While these dimensions offer a broad understanding, they often fail to capture the nuanced variations at an individual level, leading to oversimplified generalizations that can weaken policy effectiveness.
Overview of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions:
- Power Distance: measures acceptance of unequal power distribution within a society.
- Individualism vs. Collectivism: contrasts individual-centered frameworks (individualism) with group-centered ones (collectivism), where in-group loyalty is emphasized.
- Masculinity vs. Femininity: captures preference for achievement and assertiveness over nurturing and quality of life.
- Uncertainty Avoidance: reflects a society’s tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty.
- Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation: indicates a focus on future rewards (long-term) versus past and present (short-term).
- Indulgence vs. Restraint: assesses the degree of freedom in fulfilling human desires.
Widespread usage and potential pitfalls
Hofstede’s framework continues to be widely used in policy analysis and research evaluation across Europe, particularly as a tool for contextualizing behaviors at the national level. From sustainability studies to public health initiatives, Hofstede’s dimensions are regularly applied as theoretical lenses to predict social preferences, behavioral responses, and perceptions of broader issues. Numerous studies in both academic and policy research have utilized this framework in public policy analysis across diverse topics: from environmental sustainability[5] and waste culture[6] across 22 EU member states, to antibiotic usage in Europe[7], nonfinancial reporting by European state-owned enterprises[8], and femicide rates in Türkiye[9]. It has also been employed to assess characteristics and performance within EU public administrations[10], as well as in the design and evaluation of EU social[11], transportation and safety policies[12], green energy initiatives[13], and health services[14].
Advancements in cross-cultural analysis at the individual level
The limitations of this approach become particularly evident when Hofstede’s framework is used to explain or predict individual actions. Two primary challenges arise:
- Conceptual shortcomings: policy designs that assume everyone in a high power-distance culture prefers hierarchical structures risk overlooking personal and subcultural variations, making interventions irrelevant or ineffective for certain individuals or communities.
- Methodological gaps: heavy reliance on Hofstede’s dimensions can obscure essential subcultural and individual differences needed for accurate policy targeting. This can result in skewed evaluations, as standardized metrics may miss the actual drivers behind individual behaviors.
Recent developments worth noting
Recent cross-cultural research from 2023[15] has revealed that only two of Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions (Indulgence vs. Restraint and Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation) are valid and reliable at the individual level. [16] These finding questions the reliance on the full Hofstede framework to predict personal behaviors, as such studies may overlook nuances critical for individual-level analysis. Michael Minkov’s recalibration based on data from over 53,000 respondents across 54 countries, refines our understanding of how cultural values shape adaptability and adherence to norms. [17] These insights are vital for aligning policy interventions and international projects with the specific behaviors and values of individuals across cultural contexts. [18] To effectively apply Hofstede’s dimensions in modern policy, they should be integrated with a wider range of psychological and sociological tools, enabling a shift from broad generalizations to an evidence-based model that accounts for diverse cultural and individual needs. For example, leveraging multi-source data[19], including both quantitative and qualitative insights, offers real-time perspectives on cultural behaviors, enhancing culturally responsive policy adjustments by tracking individual and group dynamics. Region-specific cultural profiles provide additional localization, allowing assessments to reflect varied cultural contexts accurately. [20]
Participatory research methods, such as community-based participatory research (CBPR), further enrich this model by empowering local communities to contribute nuanced, culturally resonant insights, ensuring policy relevance and acceptance. Value-based theories, such as Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory[21], provide additional layers by aligning policy interventions with culturally specific moral values, such as fairness, loyalty, and authority, which vary across societies. For instance, policies promoting community welfare or justice can achieve broader public support when attuned to the predominant values of a culture; emphasizing loyalty and respect for authority in collectivist societies enhances policy acceptance and impact.
By combining these diverse frameworks, policymakers can avoid over-relying on generalized cultural characteristics, creating interventions that are not only effective but also respectful and culturally relevant.
Conclusion: enhancing reliability and validity in cultural diagnostics
While Hofstede’s framework has been foundational in cross-cultural analysis, recent advancements underscore the need for refined applications, particularly at the individual level. As cross-cultural research evolves, it has become evident that effective policy demands a more adaptive approach that captures individual and subcultural variations.
By integrating Hofstede’s validated dimensions with a diverse array of psychological and sociological tools (such as cultural intelligence assessments, region-specific profiles, participatory research, and value-based theories) policymakers can transcend broad generalizations. This enriched toolkit enables a more responsive and precise understanding of how cultural values influence both individual behaviors and group dynamics.
Adopting these modernized methods allows policymakers to design interventions that not only respect but resonate with the unique cultural and moral frameworks of different communities. Looking ahead, a commitment to continuous research and adaptation of cultural insights will be essential to ensure that policy frameworks remain relevant, reliable, and inclusive. Ultimately, this approach offers a pathway to developing impactful and culturally sensitive policies that align with the diverse needs of global populations.
[1] The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd ed., Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 2000.
[2] D.Fraser and S.Porter, “Culturally responsive evaluation: How do different regions approach it?”, World Bank Group (IEG), 2023. Retrieved at: link
[3] Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
[4] Hofstede, G., & Culture’s Consequences, C. V. (2001). Organizations Across Nations.
[5] Huang, C. J., Liu, H. Y., Lin, T. L., & Lai, J. Y. (2024). Revisiting Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture and environmental sustainability. Energy & Environment, 35(3), 1251-1269.
[6] Halkos, G., & Petrou, K. N. (2019). Evaluating 22 EU member states’‘waste culture’using Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s cultural dimensions. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 26(4), 313-328.
[7] Borg, M. A., & Camilleri, L. (2019). Broad-spectrum antibiotic use in Europe: more evidence of cultural influences on prescribing behaviour. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 74(11), 3379-3383.
[8] Zanellato, G., & Tiron-Tudor, A. (2022). How cultural dimensions are shaping social expectations: the case of European state-owned enterprises’ nonfinancial reporting. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 23(1), 99-121.
[9] Bekaroğlu, C. (2021). Evaluating Femicide Rates Through Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. Management and Political Sciences Review, 3(1), 15-32.
[10] Thijs, N., Hammerschmid, G., & Palaric, E. (2017). A comparative overview of public administration characteristics and performance in EU28. European Commission, Brussels.
[11] Dan, H. (2017). Is social progress subject to cultural influences? Arguments for considering cultural characteristics as inputs for social policy design and implementation. Online Journal Modelling the New Europe, (22), 104-122.
[12] Van den Berghe, W., Schachner, M., Sgarra, V., & Christie, N. (2020). The association between national culture, road safety performance and support for policy measures. IATSS research, 44(3), 197-211.
[13] Murswieck, R., Drăgan, M., Maftei, M., Ivana, D., & Fortmüller, A. (2020). A study on the relationship between cultural dimensions and innovation performance in the European Union countries. Applied Economics, 52(22), 2377-2391.
[14] Borisova, L. V., Martinussen, P. E., Rydland, H. T., Stornes, P., & Eikemo, T. A. (2017). Public evaluation of health services across 21 European countries: the role of culture. Scandinavian journal of public health, 45(2), 132-139.
[15] Minkov, M., & Kaasa, A. (2021). A test of Hofstede’s model of culture following his own approach. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(2), 384-406.
[16] Minkov, M., Sokolov, B., Tasse, M. A., Jamballuu, E., Schachner, M., & Kaasa, A. (2023). A transposition of the Minkov-Hofstede Model of culture to the individual level of analysis: Evidence from Mongolia. Cross-Cultural Research, 57(2-3), 264-293.
[17] Minkov, M. (2018). A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: Old evidence and new data from 56 countries. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(2), 231-256.
[18] Fog, A. (2021). A test of the reproducibility of the clustering of cultural variables. Cross-Cultural Research, 55(1), 29-57.
[19] Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions, 3-90.
[20] Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 58(1), 479-514.
[21] Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York Pantheon.