Theory Session 1: Divergent Cultures
Critical Reflection Paper
Peter Chen & Calvin Chan
5/11/2013
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the
contents of the document.]
Article 1: A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work
In Shalom H. Schwartz’s “A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for
Work,” he looks at different types of values on which divergent cultures can be compared to and
validated by within the work environment. This theory is an alternative to Hofstede’s (1980)
cultural dimensions, specifically referring to the individualism/collectivism comparison, and
with more focus on national differences. In our reflection, we aim to critically analyze the
foundations on which Schwartz makes his claims, reflect on his findings, and go beyond them.
In this article, culture is represented through different comparisons - both implicitly and
explicitly. As defined by Schwartz, culture is made up of similar individualized values within the
group and thus should be considered through an integrated and correlated system. Through this
approach, Schwartz’s analysis lists seven important values: (1) conservatism; (2) intellectual
autonomy; (3) affective autonomy; (4) hierarchy; (5) egalitarianism; (6) mastery; and (7)
harmony.
Due to the difference in comparative and conceptual levels, we can critically analyze and
compare the theoretical model presented in this article to Geert Hofstede’s highly discussed
cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980). Schwartz’s theory differs abstractly from previous models
(i.e. Hofstede’s). It goes beyond the individual-level and rather looks at culture-level attributes
when examining values and their influences on the meanings that members of different societies
attribute to work. The goal of examining cultural-level values is to measure motivational goals
within social institutions and the relationship among these different social values. Schwartz
believes that this comparison, at the time, allows for the most appropriate assessment on the
validity of societal or cultural dimensions on groups. As we will later see, modifications and
updates on his original theory are made to better understand cultural values and differences.
Upon finishing the article, we thought that while Schwartz’s theory does in fact consider
individual value priorities, it is difficult to draw a line between what is individual and what is
collective. The boundary which differentiates values conceptually was not represented
adequately. Schwartz does mention this discrepancy within his article by inferring that individual
value priorities are a product both of shared culture and of unique personal experiences. He goes
beyond this by saying that shared cultural values within a society help “shape the contingencies
to which people must adapt in the institutions in which they spend their time (Schwartz, 1999).”
In other words, values are shared within each cultural group to form the underlying principles
which guide individual personalities and decisions. Schwartz believes that “values (e.g. success,
justice, freedom, social order, tradition) are the vocabulary of socially approved goals used to
motivate action, and to express and justify the solutions chosen (Schwartz, 1999).”
Even with this justification, we still find it difficult to differentiate Schwartz’s theory as
substantially more on the “culture-level.” Even though he explicitly compares his own to
Hofstede’s the methodology in which he uses is oddly similar, but just more concise and
compatible in regards to the work environment specifically. When critically analyzing the three
cultural issues mentioned by Schwartz, we found many underlying similarities with Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions. The correlation makes sense due to the principal influence of the original
comparison.
The Limitations of Schwartz’s Theory
We believe that this theory is substantially oversimplified. Schwartz’s description of
culture, even though deep, fails to consider the many different dynamics within each culture.
Similarly to Hofstede, Schwartz’s theory lacks breadth and depth.
One dimension where Schwartz’s comparisons differ greatly, and positively, from
Hofstede’s is the degree of relationship and correlation between the different values. Schwartz
realizes the degree of interchangeability and similarities between his values and the need for
flexibility within his model. Using a visual two-dimensional representation, he compares similar
values and contrasts differences. We believe that this assumption is valid and applaudable. We
therefore think that this model is a more comprehensive addition, rather than alternative, to
Hofstede’s.
While there are imminent faults with both models, we believe that they still have
immense value within the business context. From our comparison, the theory presented by
Schwartz can provide a more comprehensive representation of culture, and thus a more refined
analysis when comparing different values. All three cultural dimensions, and its seven entailing
values, will give qualitative insight on societal structure and institutional thinking within the
business and work environments.
Article 2: Extending the Cross-Cultural Validity of the Theory of Basic Human Values with a
Different Method of Measurement
For our second article, we chose to develop a further understanding of Shalom H.
Schwartz’s model for classifying individualism at the cultural level. To do this, we will critically
analyze and compare his more recent article, “Extending the Cross-Cultural Validity of the
Theory of Basic Human Values with a Different Method of Measurement.” This article measures
ten values using the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS). Compared to the original data collection, the
Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ), the SVS demands a high level of abstract thinking outside
of any specific context. Our critical analysis will actively compare the implications of using the
PVQ with the SVS.
One problem with the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) is that it is not suitable across all
demographics. SVS utilizes single value items (e.g. wisdom, exciting life, family security) that
require extensive abstract thinking that is consistent globally (Schwartz, et al., 2001). People
worldwide are taught and developed differently, often as a result of their cultural upbringing.
This survey also fails to consider countries that lack an education system that emphasizes
abstract, context-free thinking. In one study of more than 200 samples from more than 60
countries, 5% of the samples deviated from the theorized pattern (Schwartz, et al., 2001). These
deviations were mostly from rural areas of less developed countries. This means that cultural
differences occur geographically within the same nation, as well as the individual level. This puts
further pressure on Schwartz’s original comparison of national cultural values (Schwartz, 1999).
To address this issue, the Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ) is developed to be more
concrete than the SVS to measure Schwartz’s 10 individual value-constructs (Figure 1,
(Schwartz, et al., 2001)). Schwartz’s 10 individual value constructs are similar to his seven
cultural value-constructs discussed in the first article. Schwartz’s individual value-constructs
utilize the same single value items but he later differentiates them into more aspects. For
example, social power and humble both attributes to “hierarchy” in Schwartz’s cultural
dimensions, but social power is placed in “power” and humble in “tradition” in Schwartz’s
original individual value-constructs. Table 1 provides the definitions and value items associated
with Schwartz’s 10 individual value-constructs. As these single value items are deemed to be too
abstract for some population, the PVQ provides a more concrete measurement by describing
“persons” and asking a respondent questions like “how much like you is this person?” Please
refer to table for examples of portraits associated with each type of values.
In comparing SVS and PVQ, identically defined values are measured in a number of
different ways. Firstly, respondent’s judgement task is different in the two instruments. SVS
requires rating of the importance of values as guiding principle in one’s life, while PVQ asks for
similarity of another person to the self (Schwartz, et al., 2001). Furthermore, the stimuli of SVS
and PVQ differ. Where PVQ are persons, portrayed in terms of goals, aspirations and wishes,
SVS are abstract, context-free values (Schwartz, et al., 2001). As a result, PVQ are usually
preferred as it is easier to understand. Finally, SVS and PVQ use different means of
measurement. SVS uses a 9-point numerical scale with respondents rating the importance of
value items from -1 to 7. This poses some issues for those with limited numeracy skills. When
providing quantitative answers, respondents tend to differentiate their thought process. PVQ, on
the other hand, uses six boxes labeled: very much like me, like me, somewhat like me, a little
like me, not like me, and not like me at all (Schwartz, et al., 2001). To sum up, the PVQ is
viewed as less of an intellectual challenging task, implying that there will potentially be less
respondent resistance.
Aside from the different means of measurement, this article also identified several
variables that are related to individual’s value priorities. These variables associated with
individual characteristics are as follows (Schwartz, et al., 2001):
1. Background (age, education, gender)
2. Attitudes (religiosity, political orientation)
3. Personality (problems of being autocratic, change seeking)
4. Behavior (choice of major field of study, alcohol use, use of mobile telephones)
These selected variables have strong implications on individual’s value priorities through a
cultural perspective. For instance, as people age, they become more committed to routines, and
become less attracted to changes and challenges (Schwartz, et al., 2001). Especially, when
individuals form families and attain stable jobs, where they become less concerned with their
own ambitions and more concerned with the welfare of others. As a result, age tends to
“correlate positively with self-transcendence (benevolence, universalism) and negatively with
self-enhancement (power, achievement) values (Schwartz, et al., 2001).”
From previous studies, value theories do show a degree of universal applicability of providing
understanding and comparison between different countries. There are also many different
models, aside from Schwartz’s, that provide preliminary information on different cultures. It is
important, however, not to solely rely on the information obtained from these studies. Cultures
are too complicated and sophisticated to be understood with a single instrument.
Criticisms of Schwartz’s Overall Model
As mentioned earlier, we believe that the Schwartz model provides great implications and
understanding of the cultural differences at both the individual and group level. This allows us to
better understand the work environment through cross-cultural psychology concepts. That being
said, we believe that Schwartz’s comparison of value is obscured in regards to external variables
and cross relationships. Further research must be done to examine cultural similarities.
Furthermore, we live in a city known as a melting pot of cultures. When comparing
national level cultural differences, these studies fail to consider the different breadth of cultures
within one area. Perhaps these social scientists can take this point into consideration for studies
in the future.
Works Cited
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and Behavior: Strength and Structure of Relations.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1207-1220.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations. New York: SAGE Publications.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Applied
Psychology, 23-47.
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001).
Extending the Cross-Cultural Validity of the Theory of Basic Human Values with a
Different Method of Measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 519-542.