sign in sign up
<<
Home , Culture, Culturology

1

THE CONCEPT OF

his treatise on the study of cross-cultural differences between mod- Tern starts with an examination of the various ways in which culture has been conceptualized. Approaches to the concept and study of culture have varied between academic disciplines, and some- times even within them. The goal of this analysis is not to provide one right perspective. Culture can be whatever a scholar decides it should be. What we need is not a single best theoretical definition of culture but clear empirical operationalizations of each approach: Researchers need to explain exactly how they propose to measure culture in accordance with their conceptualizations, diverse as they may be.

◆ 9 10 ◆ Understanding “Culture”

◆ and analyze subjectively. Therefore, the 1.1. The “Unpackaging” best that we can do in a discussion of the of Culture nature of culture is to explore the subjec- tive conceptualizations of various schol- ars. Then, we can discuss the contents of Psychologists who compare individu- the package labeled “culture” as they have als from different or ethnic been seen by cross-cultural experts. groups often observe differences between them on the dependent variables that they study. In such cases, they may show that various psychological variables, as well as ◆ 1.2. Meaning of the Word age, , educational level, and more, Culture and Definitions of produce a statistical effect that seems to the Concept account for the differences. But what if some of the variance remains unexplained? In that case, it was common practice until The origin of the Latin word cultura is recently to refer to an obscure residual clear. It is a derivative of the verb colo called “culture.” Originally, the concept (infinitive colere), meaning “to tend,” of culture seemed even more opaque to “to cultivate,” and “to till,” among other researchers who compared organizations things (Tucker, 1931). It can take objects in different countries. In the words of such as ager, hence agricultura, whose (1981), “In effect, national differences literal meaning is “field tilling.” Another found in characteristics of organizations possible object of the verb colo is animus or their members have been ascribed to . . . (“character”). In that case, the expres- national differences, period” (p. 304). sion would refer to the cultivation of the To a cultural anthropologist, culture is character. Consequently, the Latin neither obscure, nor a residual. It is a social noun cultura can be associated with edu- phenomenon that manifests itself quite cation and refinement. clearly, even if the manifestations are not The etymological analysis of “culture” always easy to explain. Anthropologists is quite uncontroversial. But in the field of consider culture an important phenom- , the situation is much more enon that warrants its own field of study. complex. Definitions of culture abound and They do not view it as a single variable; range from very complex to very simple. For being an extremely complex system, it is example, a complex definition was proposed to be analyzed in terms of its components by Kroeber and Parsons (1958): “transmit- and their relationships. Although cross- ted and created content and patterns of cultural psychologists and organizational values, ideas, and other symbolic-meaningful behavior experts accepted this rela- systems as factors in the shaping of human tively late, by now they too have grasped behavior” (p. 583). An even less easily the need to unpackage culture rather than comprehensible definition was provided by approach it as a monolithic block. 1 This White (1959/2007): “By culture we mean chapter and the next prepare the reader an extrasomatic, temporal continuum of for the third one, which represents an things and events dependent upon - unpackaging exercise. We must start with ing” (p. 3). Often cited is also a definition by a philosophical warning at the very outset Kluckhohn (1951): of our journey. We will not try to find out what is in the package because that Culture consists in patterned ways of would be futile. Culture is not a specific thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired material object that has its own objec- and transmitted mainly by , tive existence. It is underpinned by real constituting the distinctive achievements phenomena that, however, we perceive of human groups, including their The Concept of Culture ◆ 11

embodiments in artifacts; the essential the search for whatever ecological, socio- core of culture consists of traditional logical and cultural variables might link (i.e. historically derived and selected) with established variations in human ideas and especially their attached val- behavior” (p. 154). ues. (p. 86, no. 5) Segall’s call for in cross- is laudable. Theoretical But that is not all. Geertz (1973) noted debates about the meaning that “should” sarcastically that “in some twenty-seven be attributed to the concept of culture pages of his chapter on the concept, are pointless. There is no absolute reason Kluckhohn managed to define culture in why one abstract theoretical concept of it turn as . . . [what follows is 11 differ- should be better than another. However, ent definitions]; and turning, perhaps in disagreements have been voiced not only desperation, to similes, as a map, as a with respect to abstract definitions of sieve, and as a matrix” (p. 5). This lack culture but also concerning specific mat- of clarity and consensus about anthro- ters, such as whether artifacts should or pologists’ main object of study may be should not be considered part of culture one of the reasons that, in the words of (see the debate between Jahoda, 1984, Cochran and Harpending (2009), the social and Rohner, 1984). The answer to a ques- —and especially anthropology— tion of this kind can have practical conse- “haven’t exactly covered themselves in quences: It may determine what should or glory” (p. ix). 2 It also explains why to many should not be studied for the purpose of a researchers and practitioners, culture is dissertation on culture or be published in “the c-word, mysterious, frightening and a journal devoted to culture. to be avoided” (Berry, 1997, p. 144). Culture can be pragmatically defined by Some have even denied the utility of the the contents and boundaries of the inter- concept (Barber, 2008b). ests of the scholars who study it. Even bet- At the other extreme is a well-known ter, we should look at what is in the focus simple and narrow definition: Culture is of their interests. A culturologist may shared mental software, “the study climatic differences (for instance, programming of the mind that distinguishes van de Vliert, 2009), although climate is the members of one group or category of unlikely to be viewed by anybody as part people from another” (Hofstede, 2001). of culture. Yet, that researcher would not The group or category can be a national be interested in climate per se, but in how but Hofstede that his defi- it affects variation in values, beliefs, and nition applies also to other , such behaviors, which could be considered ele- as regions, ethnicities, occupations, orga- ments or expressions of culture. nizations, or even age groups and . Defining the contents and boundaries According to Jahoda (1984), “culture” of culture may also be necessary for the is the most elusive term in the vocabulary purposes of clarity and avoidance of con- of the social sciences and the number fusing statements. According to Jahoda of books devoted to the topic would fill (1984), if culture is seen as including many library shelves. A practical solu- behaviors, it is incorrect to say that culture tion was proposed by Segall (1984), who causes behavior because that would be believed that it was not worth the effort to a circular explanation. Likewise, Fischer enhance the concept’s clarity or attempt to and Schwartz (2011) discuss the question articulate a universally acceptable defini- of whether culture determines values. This tion. In his view, cultural analysts should makes sense only if values are not viewed abandon the struggle to conceptualize cul- as part of culture; otherwise the debate ture. Instead, they should “turn to the real would be like the question of whether light business at hand,” which is to “intensify produces photons. 12 ◆ Understanding “Culture”

Therefore, it might be useful that those per se, but only in specific context vari- who present cultural analyses explain ables that can explain observed differences how they conceptualize culture, specifying on some dependent variable” (p. 272), and its contents and boundaries. This could “In the ideal study the of context vari- help avoid a situation described by Child ables will be chosen in such a way that the (1981), who pointed out that there is a remaining effect for culture will be zero” danger of inferring culture as a national (p. 272). This begs the question of what phenomenon from virtually any contrasts variables can explain differences between that emerge from a comparison of orga- groups of people but are not part of their nizations in different countries: “Even if .3 such contrasts are unambiguously national Some of the clearly external variables in scope, they could possibly be due to with respect to culture—also known as other non-cultural phenomena such as “exogenous” or “extraneous”—are cli- national wealth, level of industrialization, mate, geographic location, and patho- or even climate” (p. 328). gen prevalence. But what about national A comment by Fischer (2009) illustrates wealth, main type of economy, or degree another practical reason to define culture. of democracy? Are these cultural variables In his view, if researchers do not focus or not? According to van de Vijver and on the shared aspect of culture (see 2.1.), Leung (1997a), gross national product, there is no need to investigate agreement educational systems, and even care among the members of a national culture are culture-related variables who provide to a researcher. (p. 4). Is this position acceptable? But if one adopts a definition of culture in Javidan and Houser (2004) describe which sharedness is emphasized, such an two possible views: that a society’s wealth investigation becomes necessary. should not be confused with its culture Leung and van de Vijver (2008) dis- and that wealth is an integral part of cuss two approaches to culture: holistic its culture. The position that we adopt and causal. The first approach is taken may determine our methodol- by those who view culture as consisting ogy. If wealth is an extraneous variable, a of inseparable phenomena that cannot researcher may decide to partial it out of cause each other. Those who prefer the cultural measures using statistical . If second approach may say that one cultural wealth is viewed as an integral part of cul- characteristic shapes another. If this is so, ture, there is no need to control for it when cultural researchers may need to explain cultural variables and the relationships how they conceive of culture: holistically between them are measured. Thus, the or causally. solution is a matter of subjective choice. There are also other reasons for defin- ing culture. Some methodologists working in the domain of cross-cultural ◆ 1.3. Culture As Is Versus have treated culture as a variable resem- Culture As It Would Be bling some kind of noise that needs to be reduced or eliminated. Poortinga and van de Vijver (1987) suggested a procedure for Further to the previous point, Schmitt, explaining measured differences between Allik, McCrae, and Benet-Martinez (2007) societies by introducing various relevant indicate that studies of Big Five personal- variables, each of which explains part of the ity traits usually correct for age and gender observed variance, until the effect of cul- differences. Hofstede (2001) reports raw ture disappears: “The consequence of our dimension indices as well as indices after argument is that a cross-cultural psycholo- correcting for age. Are such operations gist is not interested in the variable culture logical? The Concept of Culture ◆ 13

In cross-cultural analysis, data that are terms of good versus bad or true versus adjusted in this way are not more correct false. They simply reflect diverse perspec- than raw data. They simply provide a dif- tives, all of which may have some merits. ferent image of a particular culture: how it Cultural analysts should decide which would look if certain conditions changed. perspective best suits the purpose of their Imagine that we are comparing A research and explain it to their audiences. and nation B on “thrift” as a . We Singelis, Bond, Sharkey, and Lai (1999) find that people in A value thrift more. described two types of culture: residing However, we also find that people in A inside individuals and outside them. The are older and that older people are thriftier first type is what Triandis (1972) called in principle. If age is controlled for, the subjective culture or what Hofstede (2001) thrift-related differences between the two referred to as software of the human mind: disappear. What should our con- beliefs, values, and internalized interac- clusion be? Should we categorize nation A tion patterns. The second type consists as having a thriftier national culture? Or of the -made environment and can should we say that it exhibits the charac- include everything that people have cre- teristics of age culture, not national cul- ated, including institutions and . ture, because if its members were younger Rohner (1984) discusses two other dis- they would be more profligate? tinctions in the conceptualization of cul- The answer depends on how we prefer ture. First, there is a contrast between to view and compare cultures. We can culture as a system of behaviors versus look at actual snapshots of them, reflect- culture as a set of meanings. Second, there ing their real characteristics at a specific are scholars, called realists, who attribute point in time. Alternatively, we can choose an independent existence to culture, versus to with hypothetical constructs: cul- others, called nominalists, who view it as a tures as they would be under certain subjective human construct. hypothetical conditions that may become Because these categories are not easy to real some day. For instance, if two societ- grasp, they require special attention. ies have different demographic structures today, these differences might disappear in the future. 1.4.1. SUBJECTIVE CULTURE: The first approach is the easier solution. MENTAL SOFTWARE The second may be attractive in some situ- ations but it is less practical. Controlling Subjective culture is viewed as something for various variables by means of statisti- invisible that resides in people’s minds. cal tools does not guarantee that the statis- In his 1980 book, Geert Hofstede intro- tically obtained situation depicts what we duced his of culture as mental would observe in if culture A did programming or software of the mind. not differ from culture B on the variable However, Hofstede (2001) noted that not we have controlled for. all elements of collective mental program- ming should be viewed as culture. For instance, collective and individual identi- ties may not be classifiable as cultural ◆ 1.4. Classifications of elements. They provide an answer to the the Concepts of Culture question “Where do I belong” (p. 10) or “Who/what are we?” and “Who/what am I?” According to Hofstede (2001), Concepts of culture can fall into a num- populations that share similar cultural ber of different categories. These clas- values may sometimes fight each other if sifications cannot be easily contrasted in they have adopted different identities. It 14 ◆ Understanding “Culture” may also be useful to distinguish religious of the world that lie behind that behav- denominations (and thus religious identi- ior on the other. To put it another way, ties) from cultures. This point will be dis- culture is not observable behavior, but cussed in 2.6.3. rather the values and beliefs that people use to interpret and generate behavior, and that is reflected in their 1.4.2. OBJECTIVE CULTURE: behavior. (p. 30) INSTITUTIONS AND ARTIFACTS Whether behaviors should or should Objective culture can be conceptualized not be considered part of culture is of as created by individuals and residing course a matter of abstract conceptual- outside them. Art objects, , work ization. On a more practical note, the instruments, and residential constructions question is whether cross-cultural analysts are examples of visible cultural artifacts who attempt to explain cultural differ- that have an objective existence; these ences should compare behaviors, in addi- are studied mainly by ethnographers. tion to whatever else they study, or not. Institutions, such as marriage systems, The answer to this question can only be and (including inheritance systems, positive. taboos, etc.), and political or religious bodies, are instances of invisible elements of objective culture. Traditionally, these 1.4.4. CULTURE AS A SET OF were studied mostly by anthropologists MEANINGS and historians; today, political scientists and sociologists are interested in the insti- tutions of modern nations. is the best-known proponent of the view that meanings are central to the concept of culture (Geertz, 1973). This 1.4.3. CULTURE AS A SYSTEM OF reflects one of the main preoccupations BEHAVIORS of Western field anthropologists in the past: They had to make sense of the According to Brown (1991), “culture incomprehensible symbols, , and consists of the conventional patterns of other practices in the preliterate and pre- thought, activity, and artifact that are industrial societies that they studied. But passed on from generation to generation” the meanings-based definition has been (p. 40). Thus, if a society demonstrates a accepted by cross-cultural psychologists recognizable pattern of activity, such as as well. Pepitone and Triandis (1987) rice cultivation, that is part of its culture. define culture as “shared meanings that Not all anthropologists agree with this are encoded into the norms that consti- view, though. Murdock (1940) dissociated tute it” (p. 485). behavior from the scope of culture, stating Taken to an extreme, this position may that the former does not automatically severely reduce the perceived content and follow the latter, “which is only one of scope of culture while also clashing with its determinants” (p. 366). The following the idea of cross-cultural analysis: “Culture statement by Haviland (1990) summarizes is treated as a symbolic universe of gestures the views of many anthropologists: and their micro-interpretation within spe- cific contexts, whereas the broader brush- Recent definitions [of culture] tend to strokes of cross-cultural comparisons are distinguish more clearly between actual suspect” (Liu et al., 2010, p. 452). Culture, behavior on the one hand, and the as treated in the vast on it, is cer- abstract values, beliefs, and perceptions tainly not just a system of meanings. Yet, The Concept of Culture ◆ 15 there are multiple reasons to be interested more right to employment than women in the meanings that a particular culture (in Western countries, these percentages attaches to a given concept or behavior. ranged from 14 to 20). Another nationally One is purely academic. Without a good representative study by the Pew Research understanding of meanings, a researcher Center (2010b) revealed that 82% of may not know how to design a study. Let and Pakistanis and 70% of us assume that we are interested in com- Jordanians were in favor of stoning peo- paring national suicide rates. What exactly ple who commit adultery, while 86% of constitutes suicide? Jumping off the top Jordanians, 84% of Egyptians, and 76% of of a skyscraper in an act of despair would Pakistanis supported the death penalty for probably be viewed as suicide all over apostates who leave the Muslim . the world. Yet, so-called suicide attacks Obviously, these populations have a very are considered combat casualties by their different concept of democracy when com- perpetrators. pared to Europeans and Americans. There are also practical reasons to seek On the other hand, the explicit mean- cultural meanings. According to Cheung ing that the members of a particular cul- and Leung (1998), most Chinese score ture attach to a cultural phenomenon may high on American depression scales. Yet, be too simplistic or superficial to be of this does not necessarily mean that they much use for its understanding. and need clinical assistance. Endorsement of Muslims do not have a convincing story items that suggest depression in a Western about the meaning of the pork taboo; context does not always reveal the same they will either simply refer to their Holy condition in China. Following this logic, Scriptures, which ban the consumption of an American clinician who does not pork, or say that the pig is a dirty animal, understand depression in a Chinese con- although chickens and cattle are not cleaner text would not be very useful to Chinese (Harris, 1992). Cases of this kind raise an patients, whereas cross-cultural analysts interesting dilemma. How do we make would have trouble comparing the depres- sense of the observed phenomenon: Should siveness of Americans and Chinese. we seek its original meaning or attempt to Maseland and van Hoorn (2011) noted attach a new meaning to it in the modern that according to various surveys, people context? If we adopt the first option, we in predominantly Muslim countries value might accept Harris’s (1992) explanation: democracy more than other people, yet Unlike grass-grazing animals, pigs were their societies are less democratic. They costly to raise in the Middle East and were attempted to explain this apparent para- therefore banned. But today, the meaning dox in terms of the so-called principle of of the ban may be quite different: It can be diminishing marginal utility: People value viewed as a means of instilling self-control highly that of which they have little. But and discipline, similar to the practice of an analysis of Muslim attitudes toward fasting, or as a group identity reinforcer. democracy can be very misleading unless it starts from what people in the Muslim nations mean by democracy. According 1.4.5. CULTURE AS AN to a nationally representative study by the INDEPENDENTLY EXISTING Pew Research Center (2010a), the percent- PHENOMENON ages of people who completely agree that women should be allowed to work outside When cultural anthropologists say that the home are 22 in Jordan, 22 in , culture has an independent existence, and 47 in Pakistan. Also, 82% in Pakistan, what they mean is that it can be studied 75% in Egypt, and 68% in Jordan said independently of its carriers: the human that when jobs are scarce, men should have beings. White (1959/2007) provides an 16 ◆ Understanding “Culture” with : Linguists study to be completely bounded by the , not the people that speak them. methods by which they are measured. This conceptualization of culture is appro- This measurement , called priate for the purpose of what many operationalism, was extremely influ- anthropologists were interested in. They ential during the 1940s and the 1950s. studied various social institutions, inheri- Operationalism was first proposed by tance systems, terminologies, color Bridgman . . . , a Nobel prize-winning terms, taboos, and . The individ- physicist, but made famous in the social ual did not matter in those studies. They sciences by B. F. Skinner and others. were keyed at the supra-individual level. According to Bridgman, a construct Today, the of individual val- is “nothing more than a set of opera- ues, beliefs, attitudes, and even aspects of tions.” In other words, concepts such personality, followed by aggregation to as intelligence, , and even the societal level, is a legitimate approach culture are synonymous with the way in , if not the main one. But that they are measured. For example, the issue of the independence of culture Boring’s . . . definition of intelligence is still relevant, albeit in a completely dif- (i.e. “intelligence is what tests test”) is ferent sense. For many scholars, cultural a classic illustration of the that or psychological constructs such as indi- constructs are bounded by the way they vidualism, uncertainty avoidance, or neu- are measured. (p. 100) roticism have an independent existence of their own and can therefore be objectively The operationalist approach is delineated and described in one single explained in greater detail in 5.4.1. best way. Starting from this perspective, the goal of the researcher is to discover these objectively existing phenomena, just like a seafarer who stumbles upon a new ◆ 1.5. Conclusions About island. For example, Welzel (2010) refers the Conceptualization to a debate on the “true character of indi- of Culture vidualism” (p. 153). This implies that indi- vidualism is an entity independent of the minds of the researchers who study it and It is possible to integrate and reconcile the goal of the researchers is to find its true some, though not all, of the above-men- nature. One study of individualism is sup- tioned positions on the nature of culture posed to reveal truer results than another.4 and its definitions. The scientific study of culture should have a practical orientation but this cannot be achieved without defin- 1.4.6. CULTURE AS A SUBJECTIVE ing culture; therefore discussions on the HUMAN CONSTRUCT concept of culture are not quite useless. The goal of such discussions should not Two of the authors of the main prod- be to arrive at one right and commonly uct of Project GLOBE (a comparison of accepted definition that will once and the societal and organizational cultures for all lay the issue to rest. Rather, we of 61 societies presented in 9.17. and should stay open to diverse conceptualiza- 9.18.) make the following point (House & tions of culture, provided they are clearly Hanges, 2004): explained by their proponents and make sense to others. There are researchers and methodolo- Consequently, the question of whether gists that hold a measurement philoso- culture is a system of behaviors, meanings, phy in which constructs are believed mental characteristics, or artifacts, or of all The Concept of Culture ◆ 17 of these, cannot and need not be answered preferences, as well as a currently pre- categorically. It can be conceptualized one dominant or other social factors. way or another. All approaches can lead One popular approach to the concep- to useful results in cross-cultural analysis. tualization of culture is the onion meta- “Culture” is a construct. In the words of phor (Hofstede, 2001). This is a simplified Levitin (1973), a construct is “not directly didactic for beginners in the field. Like accessible to observation but inferable from an onion, culture can be seen as having dif- verbal statements and other behaviors and ferent layers: visible and invisible. At the useful in predicting still other observable surface are various practices that can be and measurable verbal and non-verbal observed and compared. At the core of the behavior” (p. 492). A construct can also be onion is the mental software that people thought of as a complex mental idea that are not fully aware of. It normally takes reflects objectively existing phenomena. a significant scientific effort to extract the There are many subjective ways of think- contents of that core and understand how ing of and describing an objective reality. they relate to those of the outer layers. Constructs are not the reality itself but At a more advanced level, culture could imaginary models that we build in order to be viewed as an amalgamation of poten- organize it in a way that makes sense to us tially related and relatively durable societal and, we hope, to other people. characteristics that describe an identifiable How culture is conceptualized and human population, such as a nation or studied may depend on the constraining . More restrictive definitions effect of a researcher’s cultural back- are possible, yet impractical. For instance, ground. This form of has conceiving of culture as something shared been recognized by authors of general by the members of a particular population treatises on scientific inquiry (Kuhn, 1962; that distinguishes them from another popu- Merton, 1949/1968), and cultural experts lation creates serious practical problems for (Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991; Hofstede, researchers (see 2.1. and 2.6.1.). On the 1980, 2001; Hofstede, Hofstede, & other hand, analyses of national indicators Minkov, 2010).5 Extreme forms of that are required by the reality of the world that phenomenon are undesirable, but we have we live in, never mind that nations are not to learn to live with moderate manifesta- homogeneous and discrete entities in terms tions of it and accept the idea that there is of values, beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors (see no culture-free social just as there 2.6.1.). Ultimately, the concept of culture is no absolutely unbiased journalism. Even may be replaced by the concept of “societal the choice of a particular topic and the dis- indicators,” whereas the search for a precise regard for another theme by a scholar or definition of what exactly culture is or is not a journalist may suggest individual prefer- can be replaced by a search for useful indi- ences that are associated with values. The cators for analysis in order to understand fact that these investigators will present and explain practically important issues. their own selection of stories, told in their own manner, should be viewed as normal as long as other voices are also allowed ■ Notes to be heard. Which of these is the true or real one is a meaningless question. It is like asking whether a description of grief by a 1. In the early 1980s, Adler (1983) advised Russian is more real than a description of against the treatment of culture as a residual sorrow by an Arab. Thus, culture can be but stated that it could be viewed “as an inde- construed in different ways, depending pendent or as a dependent variable” (p. 37). At on a researcher’s cultural background, the turn of the , van de Vijver and professional affiliation, or idiosyncratic Leung (1997a) had to inform their readers that 18 ◆ Understanding “Culture”

“culture is too global a concept to be meaning- (1996): “But those findings do not mean that ful as an explanatory variable, however, and other factors, equally real and equally impor- should be replaced by its constituents” (p. 3). tant, do not exist, be it in North American, Singelis et al. (1999) noted that cross-cultural European, or other cultures. The problem is studies in psychology had often been criticized that people have yet to provide a convincing precisely because culture was treated as a search for those other factors. For a variety single package, although it can be unraveled of reasons having to do not only with vari- into numerous variables, any of which might able selection but also with the account for the observed differences between of factor analysis . . . , it is our belief that the populations that a researcher has studied; the number five is probably a lower bound to consequently, it is necessary to unpackage cul- the true number of factors at this level of the ture. Almost a decade later, Leung (2008) still personality hierarchy” (p. 351, italics added). deemed it necessary to give the same advice: The words real, exist, search, and true number “In other words, researchers need to unpack- suggest that these authors see personality fac- age culture into a set of elements.” (p. 60). tors as having an existence of their own and an Treating culture as a single categorical unknown fixed number. These real factors are variable (for instance, “American” versus lurking in the dark and waiting for researchers “Japanese”) and using it as an explanation for to find them with appropriate search engines. any phenomenon is as pointless and confusing 5. The following example can serve as an as doing the same with other categorical vari- illustration. Schwartz and Sagiv (1995) demon- ables, for instance, “man” versus “woman.” In strated that Schwartz’s value structure theory fact, these are identification labels, not factors was essentially supported at the individual that can cause anything. If one finds any differ- level throughout the countries from which ence between a male population and a female Schwartz’s samples were drawn. However, population on a variable of interest, such as Schwartz and Sagiv also published national aggressiveness, ascribing the difference to being estimates of deviations from the hypothesized “male” versus “female” does not elucidate structure. One such estimate—“deviations of anything about the nature of that difference. value locations” (Table 2, p. 99) correlates Differences in aggression are not produced with Hofstede’s individualism index as follows: by different labels but by differences in genes, teachers’ samples –.68** (n = 24) hormones, patterns of upbringing, and so on. students’ samples –.60** (n = 26) Only studies of such characteristics, expressed as numerical variables, can shed light on dif- (Note: Here and throughout the book, ** ferences in aggression or other phenomena stands for correlation significant at the .01 between individuals or groups. level; * stands for correlation significant at the 2. The low status of the social sciences .05 level.) was noted also by Magala (2005). GLOBE’s in-group collectivism index (see 3. In his treatise on cross-cultural analy- 9.17.) yields positive correlations of a similar sis, Parker (1997) advocated controlling for magnitude with the deviation measures. This factors that are “(1) exogenous to the depen- demonstrates that although Schwartz’s theory dent variable yet (2) independent to the theory finds some universal empirical support, it is under study” (p. 13). It is needless to say that closest to the value structures in the minds of selecting such factors would involve a lot of the respondents in the individualist nations. subjectivity since any theory that is still in the As Schwartz’s project evolved from the work process of being studied empirically is inevi- of Milton Rokeach (Schwartz, 2011), it is not tably subjective. Being aware of this problem, surprising that a Western perspective can be Parker (1997) noted that each discipline within discerned in it. the social sciences often treats the others’ vari- Of note, Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov ables as exogenous to their variables of interest. (2010) acknowledged that their perspective 4. Consider also the following statement was partly shaped by their Dutch and Bulgarian about personality factors by Paunonen et al. backgrounds.