The term module means that the questionnaire can be used as part of a larger Research experience has shown that the answers to the 24 content questions are influenced by the nationality of the respondents. This is not to say that every respondent of nationality A gives one answer and everyone of a nationality B another, but one can expect systematic differences between the average answers from a sample with nationality A and a comparable sample from nationality B (in statistical terms, an analysis of variance on the answer scores shows a significant country effect).
As the relationship is statistical, the samples per country should be of sufficient size. An ideal size for a homogeneous sample is 50 respondents. Sample sizes smaller than 20 should not be used, as outlying answers by single respondents will unduly affect the results. If samples are heterogeneous (composed of unequal sub-samples) these numbers apply to the sub-samples. Next to nationality, answers to the 24 content questions will also reflect other characteristics of the respondents, such as their gender, age, level of education, occupation, kind of work and the point in time when they answered the questions.
Therefore comparisons of countries should be based on samples of respondents who re matched on all criteria other than nationality that could systematically affect the answers. The content questions attributed to a dimension were selected because in comparisons of matched samples from ten or more countries, the mean country scores on the four questions belonging to the same dimension usually vary together (if one is high, the other is high, or low if it is a reversely formulated question; if one is low, the other is low, etc. ). In statistical terms, the mean country scores are significantly correlated.
The mean country scores on questions belonging to different emissions usually do not vary together (are uncorrelated). Therefore, the 24 questions form 6 clusters of 4 questions each. As mentioned above, the dimensions measured by the VS.. Are based on country- level correlations, between mean scores of country samples. For the same two questions, country-level correlations can be very different from individual-level correlations, between the answers by the individuals within the country samples (for a clear explanation see e. G. Klein, Danseuses & Hall, 1994).
Individual-level correlations produce dimensions of personality; country-level correlations produce emissions of national culture. For research results about the relationship between personality and culture see Hefted & McCrae (2004). The study of national culture dimensions belongs to anthropology, the study of individual personality belongs to psychology. The first is to the second as studying forests is to studying trees. Forests cannot be described with the same dimensions as trees, nor can they be understood as bunches of trees.
What should be added to the animals, organisms and climate factors, together described by the term epitome. In reverse, trees cannot be described with the same dimensions as forests. At best one can ask in what kind of forest this tree would be most likely found, and how well it would do there. A common misunderstanding about dimensions of national culture is that they are personality types. People want to score themselves on a dimension, or worse, try to score someone else. This is called stereotyping, which is not what the dimensions are for.
They do not refer to individuals, but to national societies. What a person can do is find out how the values prevailing in his or her national society differ from those in another society. As an individual, a person can express how he or she feels about the values in a particular national society, but that would still be a function of his/her personality and not necessarily show his or her national culture. Because of this, the VS.. 2013 cannot be scored at the individual level. It is not a psychological test.
The tendency to ask for individual scoring of the VS.. Is stronger in some national cultures than in others. Especially in very individualist cultures, the request for individual scoring is frequent: the concept of my society (a forest) is weaker that the concept of me myself (a tree). The VS.. Should only be used by researchers who subscribe to the concept of a society differing from other societies. The six dimensions on which the VS.. 2013 is based were found in research across more than 40 countries.
In a research project across 20 different organizations within the same two countries, answers to the questions that made up the cross-national dimensions did not correlate in the same way (Hefted, Enquire, Omaha’ & Sanders, 1990 and Hefted, Hefted & Moving, 2010: 341-368). So the cross-national dimensions do not apply to organizational (or corporate) cultures. The answers to the VS.. Questions (dealing with values and sentiments) varied less across organizations within a country than across countries.
Instead, organizational cultures differed primarily on the basis of perceptions of practices, and the organizations in the study could be compared on six dimensions of perceived practices. While the study of national culture dimensions belongs to anthropology and the study of individual personality belongs to psychology, the study of organizational cultures belongs to sociology. The dimensions of perceived practices in the Hefted et al. 1990) study relate to known distinctions from organizational sociology. A similar concern prohibits the use of the VS.. Dimensions for comparing occupations (Hefted, Hefted & Moving, 2010: 368-369).
In some cases, VS.. Dimension scores can be meaningfully computed and compared for the genders (female versus male) and for successive generations (grandparents country or across countries, but in this case we recommend extending the questionnaire with locally relevant items (Hefted, Garibaldi, Melville, Tenure & evokes, 2010). 4. VS.. 2013 scores are not comparable to published scores Some enthusiastic amateurs have used the VS.. With a sample of respondents from one country and tried to draw conclusions comparing the scores they found with those in Hypotheses books (1980, 1991 , 2001 , 2005, 2010).
But essential to the use of the VS.. Is that comparisons should be based on matched samples of respondents: people similar on all criteria other than nationality that could systematically affect the answers. All scores in the first two Hefted books were based on carefully matched IBM subsidiary populations. A new sample, to be comparable to these, should be a attach for the original IBM populations on all relevant criteria. Such a match is virtually impossible to make, if only because the IBM studies were done around 1970 and the point in time of the survey is one of the matching characteristics.
Hypotheses books since 2001 contain scores for a number of countries not in the original IBM set, based on extensions of the research outside MOM, or in a few cases on informed estimates. Extensions of the research to countries and regions not in the original set have to be based, like any VS.. Application, on matched samples across two or more countries. These should always include one or, if possible, more of the countries from the IBM set, so that the new data can be anchored to the existing framework. Anchoring’ means that the scores from the extension research should be shifted by the difference of the old and new scores for the common country (or by the mean difference in the case of more common countries). The main problem of extension research is finding matched samples across new and old countries. Examples of successful extensions are described in Hefted (2001:464-465). The VS.. 2013 has been designed for research purposes. In the classroom it has poor ace validity, as it is based on the logic of national cultures which differs from the logic of individual students. Cultures are not king-size individuals: They are wholes, and their internal logic cannot be understood in the terms used for the personality dynamics of individuals. Echo-logic differs from individual logic” (Hefted, 2001 :17; the term ecological in cross-cultural studies is used for any analysis at the societal level; it does not only refer to the natural environment). To students or audiences without a professional training in anthropology or cross-cultural research the VS.. Is to the proper tool for explaining the essence of the dimensions.
In this case trainers should rather develop teaching tools using the tables of differences between societies scoring high and low on each dimension, which are based on significant Hefted & Moving, 2010: Chapters 3-8). The twenty-four content questions allow index scores to be calculated on six dimensions of national value systems as components of national cultures: Power Distance (large vs… Small), Individualism vs… Collectivism, Masculinity vs… Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance (strong vs… Weak), Long- vs… Short-Term Orientation, and Indulgence vs… Restraint.
All content questions are scored on five-point scales (1-2-3-4-5). Any standard statistical computer program will calculate mean scores on five-point scales, but the calculation can also be done simply by hand. For example, suppose a group of 57 respondents from Country C produces the following scores on question 04 (importance of security of employment): 10 x answer 24 x answer 2 14 x answer 3 5 x answer 4 1 x answer 5 42 20 54 valid answers totaling 125 Three of the 57 respondents gave an invalid answer: either blank (no answer) or multiple (more than one answer).
Invalid answers should be excluded from the calculation (treated as missing). The mean score in our case is: 125/54 = 2. 31. Mean scores on five-point scales should preferably be presented in two decimals. More accuracy is unrealistic (survey data are imprecise measures). Power Distance Index (PDP) Power Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a society expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. The index formula is PDP = 35(mom – mom) + 25(mom – mom) + QPS) in which mom is the mean score for question 02, etc.
The index normally has a range of about 100 points between very small Power Distance and very large Power Distance countries. C(PDP) is a constant (positive or negative) that depends on the nature of the samples; it does not affect the comparison between countries. It can be chosen by the user to shift her/his PDP scores to values between O and 100. Individualism Index (DIVIDE) Individualism is the opposite of Collectivism. Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose: a person is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only.
Collectivism stands for a roofs, which continue to protect them throughout their lifetime in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. DIVIDE = 35(mom – mol) + 35(mom – mom) + C(ICC) in which mol is the mean score for question 01, etc. The index normally has a range of about 100 points between strongly collectivist and strongly individualist countries. C(ICC) is a constant (positive or negative) that depends on the nature of the samples; it does not affect the comparison between countries. It can be chosen by the user to shift his/her DIVIDE scores to values between O and 100.
Masculinity Index (MASS) Masculinity is the opposite of Femininity. Masculinity stands for a society in which social gender roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Femininity stands for a society in which social gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. MASS = 35(mom – mom) + 35(mom – mom) + corn) in which mom is the mean score for question 05, etc.
The index normally has a range of about 100 points between strongly feminine and strongly masculine countries. C(MFC) is a constant (positive or negative) that depends can be chosen by the user to shift her/his MASS scores to values between O and 100. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (AJAX) Uncertainty Avoidance is defined as the extent to which the members of institutions and organizations within a society feel threatened by uncertain, unknown, ambiguous, or unstructured situations. AU’ = 4001118 – mom)+ 25(mom – mom) + qua) in which mom is the mean score for question 18, etc.
The index normally has a range of about 100 points between weak Uncertainty Avoidance and strong Uncertainty Avoidance countries. C(AU) is a constant (positive r negative) that depends on the nature of the samples; it does not affect the comparison between countries. It can be chosen by the user to shift his/her I-JAG scores to values between O and 100. Long Term Orientation is the opposite of Short Term Orientation. Long Term Orientation stands for a society which fosters virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular adaptation, perseverance and thrift.
Short Term orientation stands for a society which fosters virtues related to the past and present, in particular respect for tradition, preservation of “face”, and fulfilling social obligations. LTO = – mom) + 25(mom – mom) + C(IS) n which mom is the mean score for question 13, etc. The index normally has a range of about 100 points between very short term oriented and very long term oriented countries. C(l’s) is a constant (positive or negative) that depends on the nature of the samples; it does not affect the comparison between countries. It can be chosen by the user to shift her/his L TO scores to values between O and 100.
Indulgence versus Restraint Index (IVR) Indulgence stands for a society which allows relatively free gratification of some desires and feelings, especially those that have to do with leisure, merrymaking with rinds, spending, consumption and sex. Its opposite pole, Restraint, stands for a society which controls such gratification, and where people feel less able to enjoy their lives. The index formula is IVR = – ml 1) + – mom) + COO in which ml is the mean score for question 11, etc. The index normally has a range of about 100 points between high indulgence and high restraint.
C(IR) is a constant (positive or negative) that depends on the nature of the samples; it does not affect the comparison between countries. It can be chosen by the user to shift her/his IVR scores to values between O and 100. As country-level correlations differ from individual-level correlations, answers on questions used to measure a country-level dimension do not necessarily correlate across individuals. A reliability test like Cockroach’s alpha should in this case not be based on individual scores but on country mean scores. Obviously this presupposes data from a sufficient number of countries, in practice at least ten.
For comparison across fewer countries the reliability of the VS.. At the country level has to be taken for granted; it can indirectly be shown through the validity of the scores in predicting dependent variables. The IBM database (Hefted, 1980) allows to compute Cockroach alphas for the first four dimensions across 40 countries (39 for AAU, 33 for PDP because of missing data). Power Distance Index (3 items): Alpha = . 842 Individualism Index (6 items): Alpha = . 770 Masculinity Index (8 items): Alpha = . 760 Uncertainty Avoidance Index (3 items) Alpha = . 15 The rule of thumb for test reliability is a value over . 700. The new items in the new version were chosen because of their similarity to items in reliable other studies, but the reliability of the new dimension scores cannot be proven a prior’. The VS.. 2013 is copyrighted, but may be freely used for academic research projects. Consultants who want to use the VS.. 2013 periodically should pay a license fee based on the number of copies administered per year. The same holds for use by companies in employee surveys. Information on rates is available from the copyright holder ([email protected] L) 9. History of the VS.. 2013 The original questions from the 1966-1973 Hermes (MOM) attitude survey questionnaires used for the international comparison of work-related values were listed in Hefted (1980, Appendix 1). Appendix 4 of the same book presented the iris Values Survey Module for future cross-cultural studies. It contained 27 content questions and 6 demographic questions. This VS.. 80 was a selection from the IBM questionnaires, with a few questions added from other sources about issues missing in the IBM list and Judged by the author to be of potential importance.
In the 1984 abridged paperback edition of Hefted (1980) the original IBM questions were not included, but the VS.. 80 was. A weakness of the VS.. 80 was its dependence on the more or less accidental set of questions used in the IBM surveys. The IBM survey questionnaire had not really been imposed for the purpose of reflecting international differences in value patterns. However, the IBM questions could only be replaced by other questions after these had been validated across countries; and to be validated, they had to be used in a large number of countries first.
Therefore in 1981 Hefted through the newly- founded Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation (IIRC) issued an experimental extended version of the VS.. (VS.. 81). On the basis of an analysis of its first results, a new version was issued in 1982, the VS.. 82. This was widely used for the next twelve years. 3 of the questions were needed to compute scores on the four dimensions identified by Hefted. The other questions were included for experimental use. Some questions in the VS.. 82 were only applicable to employed respondents.
Thus the instrument could not be used for entrepreneurs, students, and respondents without a paid Job. The number of replications using the VS.. 82 in Iris’s files increased, but, unfortunately, it turned out that the samples from different researchers were insufficiently matched for producing a reliable new VS… This changed when Michael Hope published his Ph. D. Hess on a survey study of elites (Syllabus Seminar Alumni) from 19 countries, using among other instruments the VS.. 82 (Hope, 1990). Eighteen of these countries were part of the IBM set, but besides USA all of them were from Europe.
Hope’s data base was therefore extended by adding results from replications in six countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that could be considered somewhat matched with the Hope set. In the meantime, the research of Michael Harris Bond from Hong Kong, using the Chinese Value Survey (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987), had led to the identification f a fifth dimension: Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation (Hefted & Bond, 1988; Hefted, 2001: Chapter 7). In the new version of the VS.. Published in 1994 (the VS.. 94), this dimension appeared for the first time together with the other four.
The questionnaire was also adapted to respondents without a paid Job. Accumulated experience with the use of the VS.. 94 in the next 14 years led to the publication of an updated VS.. 08. In the meantime, many new sources of cross- cultural survey information became available. One was an unpublished Master’s Thesis (Van Bug, 2006) reporting on the Internet administration of the VS.. 94 among active members of the student association EASIES in 41 countries, collecting some 2,200 valid answers, a response rate of 24%.
We also looked for questions correlated with the IBM dimensions in the newly available sources, including the huge World Values Survey database freely accessible on Internet (Ingather and associates, 1998, 2004, 2007). In 2007, Michael Moving published a book integrating all available old and new databases, and we invited him to Join the VS.. Team. Moving (2007) proposed three new dimensions: Exclusion versus Universalism, Indulgence versus Restraint, and Monumentality versus Flexibility (flexibility plus nullity).
From these, Exclusion versus Universalism across 41 countries was strongly correlated with Power Distance and Collectivism (both r = . 74), so we did not treat it as a new dimension. Indulgence versus Restraint was uncorrelated with any of the five dimensions in the VS.. 94 and it added new insights into national cultural differences, so we accepted it as a new and sixth dimension. Monumentality versus Flexibility was significantly correlated with Short Term Orientation (r = . 68 across 16 overlapping countries) and less strongly with Power