- 848 Downloads
Leung and Bond (2008) argue that most people are purposeful in life, frequently grappling with two fundamental questions: what goals to pursue in life and how to pursue those goals. The “what” question has been extensively researched under the rubric of values, a long-vibrant enterprise which seeks to identify the general goals that guide people's choices and actions (e.g., Rokeach, 1973). Given the prominence of research on values, it is no coincidence that values are also widely used in conceptualizing national culture and its influence on the performance of its citizens (e.g., Kluckhohn & Stodtbeck, 1961). With its breadth of coverage, the now-classic work of Hofstede (1980) on work-related values has leapfrogged other value frameworks as the dominant paradigm in cross-cultural theorizing.
Subsequent to Hofstede's (1980) ground-breaking work, several major projects have continued to search for value-based dimensions of cultural variation. Using values derived from the Chinese cultural heritage, the Chinese Culture Connection (1987) identified a new dimension of national value variation, Confucian work dynamism, or short-term vs. long-term orientation (Hofstede, 1991). Schwartz (1994) has established a more psychologically grounded mapping of cultures with his seven culture-level value domains. Finally, Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars (1996) identified three major value dimensions. It is instructive to note that Smith and Bond (1998, ch. 3) concluded that converging results have been obtained across these different value surveys.
KeywordsGeneral Belief Epistemological Belief Experimental Social Psychology Fate Control Axiom Dimension
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Keller, H. (1997). Evolutional approaches. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 215–255). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, New York.Google Scholar
- Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational basis. N Y: Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
- Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Psycho-logic and eco-logic: Insights from social axiom dimensions. In F. van de Vijver, D. van Hemert, & Y. P. Poortinga (Eds.), Individuals and cultures in multilevel analysis (pp. 197–219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Leung, K., Bond, M. H., Reimel de Carrasquel, S., Muñoz, C., Hernãndez, M., Murakami, F., Yamaguchi, S., Bierbrauer, G., & Singelis, T. M. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. B. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar