Clustering of Variables Preprint 2020

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/343670790
A test of the reproducibility of the clustering of cultural variables
Preprint · August 2020
CITATIONS READS
0 64
1 author:
Agner Fog
Technical University of Denmark
25 PUBLICATIONS 483 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Theory of cultural change based on evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and cultural evolution View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Agner Fog on 15 August 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Preprint
A test of the reproducibility of the clustering of

cultural variables
Agner Fog
Technical University of Denmark
2020
Abstract
Cultural variables from many different cross-cultural studies can be divided into two
clusters of variables that are strongly correlated within each cluster. This is reflected in two
factors that are found to be reproduced by independent sets of cultural variables and also
reflected in several different cross-cultural studies. The first factor, called superfactor,
reflects the combined effects of development and modernization, together with social-
psychological effects such as collectivism, conservatism, regality, and tightness. The second
factor, called East Asian factor, combines several effects related to East Asian cultures, and
possibly also differences in response style. These two factors can be found in several
previously published cultural maps, but rotated differently. The common practice of factor
rotation has obscured similarities between many different cross-cultural studies. Many
previously published cultural factors with different names are in fact differently rotated
solutions reflecting the same or closely related underlying cultural differences.
Keywords: cultural differences, cultural variables, social development, modernization,

collectivism, regality theory, tight and loose cultures, factor analysis, factor rotation.
Social scientists have applied many different approaches to describe cultural
differences quantitatively. This has led to a variety of cultural variables, factors, and
dimensions (The present article will use the term cultural variables to include factors and
dimensions). The status of the field has been described as a rich, but somewhat disorderly
variety of approaches and dimensions (Maleki & de Jong, 2014). There have been several
attempts to establish an overview of these concepts of cultural variables based on
theoretical criteria (Nardon & Steers, 2009; Taras, Rowney & Steel, 2009; Minkov, 2011,
2013). These attempts to establish order in the confusing collection of variables are
hampered by the fact that, in some cases, different authors have used the same name for
variables that measured different things, while in other cases, different names have been
applied to variables that measured the same or closely related cultural phenomena. It is
necessary to use statistical analyses to detect whether different cultural variables published
by different scientists are closely related or not. An initial attempt to establish a general
classification of the many cultural variables with the aid of statistics has been carried out by
Ammar Maleki and Martin de Jong (2014).
Maleki and de Jong gathered country scores from five major empirical studies
comprising 21 cultural variables. These cultural variables were classified into seven factors
and nine clusters of variables by a combination of theoretical criteria and statistical factor
analysis. The nine clusters of cultural variables were named as follows (Maleki & de Jong,
2014):
1. Individualism vs. collectivism

2. Power distance
3. Uncertainty avoidance
4. Mastery vs. harmony
5. Traditionalism vs. secularism
6. Indulgence vs. restraint
7. Assertiveness vs. tenderness
8. Gender egalitarianism
9. Collaborativeness
This is a laudable achievement, but in order to assess how useful this categorization
is, we need to test if the clusters or categories are reproducible when applied to other
studies than the five studies included in Maleki and de Jong's analysis. The reproducibility of
the division of cultural variables into clusters or factors will be tested in the present study.
It is suspected that the number of clusters may be higher than necessary based on
insights from a new theory called regality theory. This theory will be shortly explained here
since it is not yet commonly known in the field of cross-cultural research.
Regality theory is a branch of evolutionary psychology that seeks to explain various
psychological and cultural reactions to perceived collective danger (Fog, 2017). Regality
theory is based on the assumption that war or intergroup conflict in prehistory has been a
strong evolutionary force shaping human psychology. Imagine a conflict between two stone
age tribes. The tribe that has the most fierce, brave, and well-organized warriors is likely to
win over its enemy. But organized fighting involves a collective action problem. Each
individual warrior can gain more reproductive fitness by free riding than by fighting for the
benefit of his tribe, unless there is a high reward for fighting. This collective action problem
can be overcome by having a strong leader who can reward brave warriors and punish
cowards and defectors. A strong leader in this situation is a benefit for the whole group, and
we can expect everybody to support such a leader. The warrior who supports a strong
leader will not only suffer the costs of fighting. He will also reap his share of the group-level
benefits that result from the fighting of all the other tribe members. This model allows us to
explain collective action without resorting to the controversial theory of group selection.
Regality theory predicts that people in the event of war or perceived collective danger will
feel a need for having a strong leader and strict discipline. The opposite situation is seen in
the case of peace and security. People in peaceful surroundings will see no need for a
2
strong leader who is likely to be despotic and take advantage of everybody else. Instead,
they will prefer an egalitarian society and ideology. The contrasting situations of war and
peace are affecting the whole social structure and culture in opposite directions. The
combined effect of the psychological preferences of all the members of a social group has
emergent effects on the social and political structure of the whole society. Typically, a group
under perceived collective danger will develop a hierarchical and authoritarian political
structure, harsh discipline, xenophobia, strict religiosity, strict sexual morals, and a
philosophy that the individual exists for the benefit of the tribe or state. Such a culture is
called regal. The opposite situation is seen in social groups in an environment of peace and
security. Such groups will develop in the opposite direction, called kungic. A kungic culture is
typically egalitarian, tolerant, and peaceful. While the regal vs. kungic dimension reflects a
psychological and cultural flexibility that is derived from evolutionary pressures in a distant
past, the strong effects of perceived collective danger can still be observed today. Modern
culture is very different from stone age culture in many respects, yet the evolved
psychological response patterns are still driving cultures in either authoritarian or egalitarian
directions depending on the perceived level of collective danger. We can expect the level of
regality to be relatively low in modern, highly developed countries because of a higher level
of collective security, while conflict-ridden countries under unstable conditions are expected
to be more regal (Fog, 2017).
The reason for introducing regality theory here is that this theory predicts correlations
between most of the nine clusters of cultural variables listed above; and this inspired the
present study. The first cluster, individualism vs. collectivism, is clearly related to the regal
vs. kungic dimension because individualism is high in kungic societies, while collectivism is
needed in regal societies. Power distance is high in regal societies because of a hierarchical
social organization. Uncertainty avoidance may perhaps be related to collective fear which is
high in regal cultures. The cluster of mastery vs. harmony is expressing the relationship with
nature, and also masculinity. This may be weakly related to regality. Traditionalism vs.
secularism is clearly related to regality. Traditional societies are often relatively regal, while
secular societies are more kungic. Indulgence vs. restraint is related to discipline. We will
expect more restraint in regal societies because of their authoritarian discipline, while we will
see more indulgence in kungic societies because of their higher level of tolerance.
Assertiveness vs. tenderness refers to communication styles in industrial organizations. This
is not clearly related to regality, but individual assertiveness may be related to individualism
and hence kungic tendencies. Gender egalitarianism is typical of kungic cultures.
Collaborativeness is a requirement of regal societies, but the variable referred to in this
category originally related to industrial organizations rather than to whole societies.
The theory outlined here indicates that a lot of the cultural variables and clusters
mentioned above are likely to be correlated with each other because they are linked to the
phenomena of hierarchy, discipline, and collaboration that characterize the regal vs. kungic
dimension. This leads to the prediction that it should be possible to isolate a statistical factor
that combines the effects discussed here. The present study is mainly exploratory - exploring
whether such a factor exists and what it may look like.
Quantitative cross-cultural studies have many problems relating to the construction of
variables, linearity, sampling methods, representativeness, sample size, and whether
cultural boundaries coincide with national boundaries. Similarities between different cultures
may be due to cultural diffusion, common descent, similar environments, or random factors.
These are all well-known problems subject to ongoing debate in the scientific community.
The present study does not attempt to judge which of the available studies have the best
methodology or the soundest results. The focus is, rather, whether there are statistical
similarities between the results of different studies despite differences in methodology and
theoretical foundation.
3
Statistical analyses
Country data from all available studies of cultural variables were gathered for
statistical analysis. This includes quantitative studies of cultural differences that provide
contemporary data for at least twenty different countries. The cultural variables were divided
into three sets to be analyzed separately. Set 1 consists of the data that were used in Maleki
and de Jong's study. Set 2 is a similar set that is independent of set 1. Set 3 consists of the
remaining variables not included in set 1 and set 2.
The second set of variables, called set 2, is composed of studies that were not
published by any of the authors behind set 1 and did not rely on the same data sources. It
was necessary to exclude variables with many missing country values because the
mathematical method used for dealing with missing data, described below, fails to reach
convergence when there are too many missing values. Variables that covered less than 33
countries were excluded from set 2. Subsequently, it was necessary to remove variables that
had more than 12 missing country values in the remaining set 2. It is worth emphasizing that
the criteria for including variables in set 2 were merely technical. These criteria were
necessary for avoiding overlap with set 1 and for reducing the number of missing values to a
level that made the factor analysis possible. There were no selection criteria relating to the
type or quality of variables or to the theoretical concept behind each variable. The absence
of theory-related selection criteria has precluded expectation bias.
Set 1 and 2 were factor analyzed in the same way in order to test the reproducibility
of the findings. Set 3, consisting of the remaining variables, had too many missing values for
a factor analysis to be possible, while correlations could still be calculated for all three sets.
A factor analysis of set 1 and 2 combined was also not possible because the two sets did not
have enough countries in common to keep the number of missing values sufficiently low.
The studies and variables included in set 1, 2, and 3 are listed in table 1. Many of the
cultural variables in the literature are factors with subjective and unclear interpretations. In
the words of Minkov and Hofstede (2012): "Naming dimensions is a form of art, not exactly
science." The meanings or interpretations of each cultural variable are listed in an online
supplement, as far as these have been explained in the original literature.
The present study is using the expectation maximization algorithm for dealing with
missing data (Schafer, 1997). This method gives more accurate results than the often-used
methods of replacement by the mean or random imputation. It is not clear what method
Maleki and de Jong have used for dealing with missing data. The present analysis may
therefore deviate slightly from Maleki and de Jong's.
There is no universal method for determining an appropriate number of factors in a
factor analysis. A common method is to count the number of eigenvalues bigger than 1. This
gives four factors for set 1, and three (almost four) factors for set 2, as shown in the scree
plots in figure 1 and 2. Another method is to compare with a line of simulated randomness.
This method gives three factors for set 1 and one or two factors for set 2 (figure 1 and 2).
Results of factor analyses with two to five factors are reported in the online supplement. It
was decided to use four factors for set 1 because additional factors contributed only little to
the total explained variance. There was no justification for using seven factors.
We notice from the scree plots that the first eigenvalue is much higher than the rest.
This supports our prediction that it is possible to extract a factor that correlates with most of
the variables. The common practice of factor rotation tends to divide the total variance more
evenly between the factors than what the scree plot indicates. It is better to look at the
unrotated solution if we want to explore the expected superfactor that may correlate with
most or all of the variables. The result of an unrotated factor analysis of set 1 is shown in
table 2. The four factors are named F1 - F4. The superfactor F1 accounts for 30% of the
total variance. The remaining factors account for 14, 13, and 8 % of the variance,
respectively.
It was decided to use four factors for set 2 as well in order to facilitate comparison
with set 1. Again, we see that the first eigenvalue is much higher than the remaining values.
4
The result of the factor analysis of set 2 is shown in table 3. The four factors are named G1 -
G4.
The factors from set 1 are compared with the factors from set 2 in order to test the
reproducibility of the supposed clustering of variables. Correlations between the factors from
the two sets are listed in table 4. Similar correlations for different numbers of factors and
different rotation methods are listed in the online supplement. The first three factors for set 1
were significantly correlated with factors for set 2 in the unrotated solution. F1 is strongly
correlated with G1 and also significantly correlated with G2. F2 is strongly correlated with
G3, and F3 is significantly correlated with G4. The factors G1 - G4 are named after their
variance, rather than after their correspondence with similar factors in set 1. F1, G1, and G2
all have highly significant correlations with the human development index (HDI). The
correlations of F1 with G1 and G2 are still moderately significant (p < 0.05) after controlling
for HDI, while the correlation between F2 and G3 is highly significant (p < 0.001) after
controlling for HDI (see table 4).
Quartimax rotation produced a stronger variance for the G1 factor but somewhat
lower correlations between the F factors and the G factors. Varimax and promax rotations
produced still lower correlations between the factors from the two sets. Tables for the
different rotations are shown in the online supplement.
The correlations of the variables of set 1, 2, and 3 against the factors F1 - F4 and G1
- G4 were calculated using pairwise complete observations. The correlations were calculated
with and without control for Human Development Index (HDI) because development is a
likely confounding factor. These correlations are listed in table 5.
Results and discussion

The results are showing remarkably strong similarities between different studies
carried out at different times using different variables and different methods. Different
cultures often develop in the same direction. If there is a certain statistical relationship
between two different cultures at a certain point in time, then there is likely to be a similar
relationship at a later time if the two cultures are following approximately parallel trajectories
(Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018). This explains why different statistical variables measured ten
or twenty years apart are showing significant loadings on the same factors.
The first factor from set 1, F1, is strongly correlated with the first factor from set 2, G1
(see table 4). This shows that the existence of a superfactor is indeed a reproducible finding.
The superfactor F1 or G1 is significantly correlated with more than half of all the cultural
variables in table 5. This is an important discovery.
The superfactor captures several aspects of cross-cultural differences that happen to
be correlated with each other for a number of reasons. This includes economic,
technological, and institutional aspects commonly described as development, as well as
cultural factors related to modernization, and psychological factors that we may describe
with the regal vs. kungic dimension. Many of the correlations of cultural variables with the
superfactor remain significant when we control for the confounding influence of HDI (table 5).
This means that the superfactor cannot be explained by development effects alone.
We may improve the understanding of the superfactor by looking at some of the
variables that have strong correlations with F1 and G1. A low value of F1/G1 indicates high
development, modernization, and low regality, while a high value of F1/G1 is seen in cultures
with less development, less modernization, and high regality. This is evident from many of
the correlations shown in table 5. Some notable examples are worth mentioning here:
Individualism vs. collectivism is connected with modernization and low regality, as reflected
in a negative correlation with F1 and G1. The variable named In-group collectivism is the
opposite. Power distance is a measure of hierarchy which is a typical indicator of regality,
reflected by a positive correlation. Secular vs. traditional values, self-expression vs. survival
5
values, and emancipative values are all connected with modernization and low regality,
reflected by a negative correlation with F1 and G1. Exclusionism vs. universalism is
connected with traditionalism vs. modernization, reflected by a positive correlation. The
variable named Embeddedness vs. autonomy is similar to collectivism vs. individualism,
reflected by a positive correlation with the superfactor. Hierarchy is similar to power distance,
reflected by a positive correlation. The variable named regality has a positive correlation with
the superfactor as expected. Strict religiosity is connected with regality, reflected by a
positive correlation. Egalitarian values are typical of kungic cultures (low regality), reflected
by a negative correlation. Sociosexuality has a negative correlation as predicted by regality
theory. The concept of cultural tightness is similar to regality since both are reactions to fear
and danger. The measure of tightness by Uz has stronger correlations than Gelfand's
tightness when HDI is not controlled. The connection between these different variables and
their relationship with development and modernization has been studied thoroughly by
Inglehart and Welzel (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005; Welzel, 2013; Inglehart, 2018).
The correlation between the dominating factors F1 and G1 was predicted by our
theory, but there are more correlations between the factors of set 1 and 2 that were not
predicted in advance. Most notable is the strong correlation between factors F2 and G3 (see
table 4). This means that there is a second dimension of cultural differences that has been
captured by multiple studies. We may explore this second dimension by looking at the
variables that have strong correlations with F2 and G3 in table 4. The F2/G3 factor has a
strong negative correlation with long term orientation. This means that cultures high in this
factor are less interested in long term planning while cultures low in F2/G3 are able to delay
gratification. Minkov's variables named monumentalism vs. flexumility and flexibility vs.
monumentalism have strong correlations with F2/G3. This means that countries high in this
dimension have strong pride and immutable identities, while a low score indicates flexibility
and humility (Minkov, 2011; Minkov et al., 2018). The variable named Confucian work
dynamism has a negative correlation with F2/G3. This variable is the result of a search for
East Asian perspectives and values as an alternative to the research dominated by Western
philosophies. Cultures low in F2/G3 can be expected to exhibit thrift, persistence, and sense
of shame (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987). We can therefore expect East Asian or
Confucian cultures to be found in the low end of the F2/G3 dimension. A closely related
variable is Minkov's K factor (Minkov, 2014), which is negatively correlated with F2/G3.
All of these variables are known to be related to aspects that are characteristic of
East Asian cultures, but the theoretical concepts appear to be incoherent (Fang, 2003), and
scientists have problems explaining why they are related to each other (Minkov et al., 2018).
It is important to notice that cultural differences in response style may account for some of
the differences between East Asian and other countries, as East Asians tend to give less
extreme and less negative answers to surveys (Harzing, 2006; Guo & Spina, 2019).
No theoretical explanation has been found for the somewhat weaker correlation
between the factors F3 and G4. This third correlation pair is only observed in the unrotated
four-factor solution.
It is illustrative to plot the countries of the world along the two main dimensions that
have been identified here. Figure 3 shows a map of countries along the dimensions of F1
and F2 from set 1. Figure 4 shows a similar plot of countries along G1 and G3 for set 2. The
latter plot has fewer countries, but the similarity between the two plots is clear. The X-axis,
representing the superfactor F1/G1, has the rich North European welfare states in the low
end, while less developed and more war-torn countries are found in the high end. This
confirms that the superfactor is negatively related to development and modernization, and
positively related to regality.
The Y-axis has the East Asian countries in the low end, in accordance with the
negative correlations of F2/G3 with Confucian work dynamism and long-term orientation.
The high end of the Y-axis includes several Latin American countries. We may also expect
to find African countries here, according to Minkov's interpretation of the K factor (2014), but
few African countries are included in the samples.
6
If the meanings of variable names such as Confucian work dynamism and
Monumentalism vs. flexumility is not quite clear, we may gain more understanding from a
more qualitative study aimed specifically at finding cultural differences between East and
West (Nisbett, 2004). Nisbett's study found that East Asian people have a more holistic way
of understanding the world, while people in the Western cultures tend to focus on simple
deterministic relationships that avoid contradictions. The social relations in East Asia are
more interdependent and collectivistic than in the West, in agreement with this holistic world
view. More research is needed to find ways to measure these cultural differences and
possibly relate them to the second dimension in figure 3 and 4. It would be premature to
name this second dimension after a particular effect as long as we do not fully understand
how the different social, cultural, and psychological effects interact to produce this factor.
Instead, we will use the preliminary name East Asian factor, for the factor represented by F2
and G3.
The two plots are based on two independent samples of cultural variables. The
striking similarity between these two plots indicates that the two dimensions are
reproducible. If this is true, then we may be able to find similar patterns in other published
cultural maps. The most well-known cultural map is Inglehart and Welzel's map of cultural
values (World Values Survey, 2019). This map has a dimension called self-expression vs.
survival values on the X-axis and secular/rational vs. traditional values on the Y-axis.
Inglehart and Welzel's map is actually quite similar to the maps in figure 3 and 4 if we rotate
it. The North European welfare states are placed in the upper right corner with high self-
expression values and high secular/rational values, while the opposite corner representing
survival values and traditional values includes less developed African and South Asian
countries. The superfactor of the present study thus corresponds to a diagonal line from the
upper right to the lower left corner of Inglehart and Welzel's map. The East Asian factor of
the present study corresponds to a vertical line on Inglehart and Welzel's map with
Confucian countries at the top and Latin American and African countries at the bottom.
The geometric distortion that transforms one cultural map to the other is due to the
factor rotation that was used in the construction of Inglehart and Welzel's map. The factor
rotation has divided the total variance more evenly between the factors. This hides the fact
that it is possible to extract a superfactor that accounts for a large fraction of the total
variance. Small differences in the variables included in a factor analysis can result in
different factor rotations that obscure similarities between different studies.
A recalculation based on the same data as Inglehart and Welzel's factor analysis has
led to the conclusion that a single-factor solution is more appropriate (Li & Bond, 2010;
Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018). Welzel (2013) points out some problems with factor analysis,
and suggests that secular values and emancipative values can be combined under a
common framework of human empowerment. Ronald Inglehart (2018) has made a similar
observation in connection with his modernization theory. Inglehart finds that a single factor
combining survival vs. self-expression values, individualism vs. collectivism, and autonomy
vs. embeddedness accounts for 81% of cross-national variation in these variables.
Inglehart's modernization dimension is similar to the superfactor identified in the present
study, with opposite sign.
Several other studies have produced two-factor models of cultural differences and
two-dimensional cultural maps along their two factors (Smith, Trompenaars & Dugan, 1995;
Schwartz, 2006; Minkov, 2011; Stankov, Lee & van de Vijver, 2014; Fog, 2017). These
cultural maps are all different, but they have important features in common. A line that
corresponds to the superfactor identified in the present study can be drawn on all of these
maps, though rotated differently. At an angle to this line appears another dimension that
tends to have the East Asian cultures clustering in one end. There is less agreement on
what comes at the opposite end of this second line, but at least the last three of these
studies have some Latin American countries here.
If we return to the study by Maleki and de Jong (2014) and their arrangement of
cultural variables into clusters, we find that the superfactor (F1/G1) of the present study is
related to cluster 1 and 2, while the East Asian factor (F2/G3) correlates with the variables in
7
cluster 5 and 9. The remaining clusters have no clear parallel in the present study, and the
seven-factor solution could not be reproduced on different data sets.
Conclusion
The present study has identified two important factors or dimensions of culture that
can be found in the data from many different cross-cultural studies. The strongest factor, or
superfactor, is significantly correlated with more than half of all cultural variables in all
available quantitative cross-cultural studies of contemporary cultures. The existence of this
superfactor was predicted on the basis of regality theory – a new theory based on
evolutionary psychology. The superfactor captures a number of important cultural
phenomena that happen to be correlated with each other for a number of reasons. This
includes physical and economic factors that can be subsumed under the category of
development, as well as cultural values and institutions representing modernization, and also
social-psychological factors reflecting collectivism, regality, and tightness.
The second factor, tentatively named East Asian factor, taps several aspects of
culture that are characteristic of East Asian countries, including long-term orientation, thrift,
flexible self-perception, sense of shame, and possibly also spurious effects of differences in
response style. The existence of the second factor was not predicted at the start of the
present study.
The finding of these two factors is highly reproducible. The existence of these main
factors has been obscured by the common practice of factor rotation. The most commonly
used methods of factor rotation tend to divide the total variance more evenly between factors
than what a scree plot shows. This is hiding the existence of a dominating factor that
accounts for a large fraction of the total variance. Cultural maps published by different
authors appear to be approximately equivalent, but differently rotated, skewed, or mirror
imaged due to the different rotations of factors. There has been a tendency for every new
cross-cultural study to produce a new differently rotated factor solution. The authors of these
studies have often invented new names for the factors they discovered, without recognizing
that they were similar to previously published factors, except for a different rotation.
Unrotated solutions or quartimax rotation makes the similarity between different studies
more easily discernible.
It is observed that different kinds of studies using different statistical methods and
different theoretical concepts, including collective values and norms as well as individual
preferences, have produced results that are highly correlated with each other. Obviously, not
every random set of cultural variables will generate the same two factors. The point here is
to show that there are more similarities between the results of different cross-cultural studies
that what appears from the many rotated factors with different names.
The finding of two main factors in the present study does not mean that culture can
be described exhaustively with just two factors. A more appropriate interpretation is that a
large number of the variables that social scientists have decided to study are correlated with
each other in ways that can be represented by these two factors. It is quite possible that
more common factors can be found in future studies.
Maleki and de Jong (2014) proposed that cultural variables can divided into nine
clusters. This number of clusters appears to be excessive, but at least two clusters of
cultural variables are found to be reproducible. The first cluster of cultural variables includes
all variables that are strongly correlated with the superfactor identified here. This includes
variables such as individualism vs. collectivism, power distance, egalitarian values,
religiosity, tightness, regality, self-expression vs. survival values, and secular-rational vs.
traditional values. This group of variables corresponds to cluster 1 and 2 in Maleki and de
Jong's classification. The second group includes variables that are strongly correlated with
the East Asian factor of the present study. This includes long-term orientation, Confucian
values, flexibility vs. monumentalism, and Minkov's K factor. This corresponds to cluster 5
and 9 in Maleki and de Jong's classification.
8
The fact that so many cultural variables are correlated with just two factors has
important consequences for cross-cultural research. The risk of spurious correlation between
any too variables is obvious, and it is important to control for confounding influences.
Finally, we must recognize that not all cultural differences can be expressed in
quantitative terms. Categorical variables such as religion, language, and subsistence pattern
are not easily included in linear statistical models. A cluster analysis of cultures including
qualitative traits may purvey useful information that is not found in factor analyses of cultural
variables (Ronen, 2013; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005).
9
Figures
Fig. 1. Scree plot for set 1. The dots Fig. 2. Scree plot for set 2. The dots
indicate eigenvalues. The solid line indicate eigenvalues. The solid line
represents simulated randomness. represents simulated randomness.
Fig. 3. Map of countries on factors F1 and F2.
10
Fig. 4. Map of countries on factors G1 and G3.
11
Tables
Short name Full name Reference Sample Coun Respon-
type tries dents per
country
Set 1
Individualism Individualism vs Hofstede, business 69 2000
collectivism Hofstede &
Minkov 2010
Power dist. H Power distance " " " "
Uncertainty Uncertainty
" " " "
avoidance
Masculinity Masculinity vs
" " " "
femininity
Long term Long term
" " " "
orientation
Exclusionism Exclusionism vs Minkov 2011 national 86 n.a.
universalism statistics
Indulgence M Indulgence vs WVS 43 > 1000
"
industry
Monumentalism Monumentalism WVS 43 > 1000
"
vs flexumility
Embeddedness Embeddedness Schwartz mixed 36 180-280
vs autonomy 2006; Maleki &
de Jong 2014
Hierarchy Hierarchy vs 36
" "
egalitarianism
Mastery Mastery vs 36
" "
harmony
Secular Secular/rational Inglehart & WVS 97 > 1000
vs. traditional Welzel 2005
values
Self expression Self-expression 97 > 1000
" "
vs. survival val.
Performance Performance House et al. business 58 > 200
orientation, as is 2004
Future orientation Future orientation,
" " " "
as is
Gender egal. H Gender egalitaria-
" " " "
nism, as is
Assertiveness Assertiveness, as
" " " "
is
Institutional coll. Institutional col-
" " " "
lectivism, as is
In-group coll. In-group collecti-
" " " "
vism, as is
Power dist. G Power distance,
" " " "
as is
Humane orient. Humane orienta-
" " " "
tion, as is
Set 2
Nastiness Nastiness Stankov & Lee SWV 33 250
2015
Morality Morality " " " "
Religiosity SL Religiosity " " " "
Religiosity SS Religiosity Stankov & SWV 33 > 200
Saucier 2015
Complexity Social complexity " " " "
12
Reward Reward for Appli-
" " " "
cation
Cynicism Social cynicism " " " "
Fate Control Fate control " " " "
Egalitarian Egalitarian com- Smith 1995, student 43 > 200
mitment vs Minkov 2013
conservatism
Loyal Loyal vs utilitarian
" " " "
involvement
LOC political Political-personal
" " " "
locus of control
LOC individual Individual-social
" " " "
locus of control
Regality Regality Fog 2017 SWV 33 > 200
Discipline Discipline vs
" " " "
violence
Sociosexuality Sociosexuality Schmitt 2005 conveni- 46 78-608
ence
Set 3
Conservatism Conservatism vs Stankov, Lee conveni- 33 9-430
liberalism & Vijver 2014 ence
Harshness Harshness vs 34
" " "
softness
Indulgence H Indulgence vs Hofstede 2010 business 93 2000
restraint
Tightness G Tight vs loose Gelfand et al. mixed 32 200
cultures 2011
Tightness U Cultural tightness, Uz 2015 WVS 68 > 1000
combined
Secular W Secular values Welzel 2013 WVS 94 > 1000
Emancipative Emancipative 96
" " "
values
Externality Dynamic Bond et al student 42 64-710
externality 2004
Cynicism B Societal cynicism " " " "
Self-directed Self-directedness Bond & Lun WVS 55 > 1000
vs other-directed- 2014
ness
Civility Civility vs practi-
" " " "
cality
Integration Integration Chinese cul- student 22 > 100
ture con-
nection 1987
Confucian Confucian work
" " " "
dynamism
Human Human hearted-
" " " "
ness
Moral Moral discipline " " " "
Individual B Individualism vs Beugelsdijk & WVS 104 > 1000
collectivism Welzel 2018
Joy joy vs duty " " " "
Trust Trust vs distrust " " 102 "
Confidence Support of central Fischer 2013 conveni- 21 > 100
authority ence
Hierarchy F Hierarchical domi- 28
" " "
nance values
Individual M Individualism vs Minkov et al consumer 55 100-8400
collectivism 2017 panels
13
Flexibility Flexibility vs Minkov et al. consumer 54 100-8400
monumentalism 2018 panels
Polarization Social polarization Minkov 2009 mixed 47 500-3000
Long term MH Long term orien- Minkov & WVS 38 > 1000
tation Hofstede 2012
Familialism Familialism Minkov 2013 " " "
K factor K factor and hy- Minkov 2014 WVS 71 > 1000
pometropia
Conservatism S Conservatism vs Schwartz 1994 conveni- 31 > 100
autonomy ence
Pace Pace of life Levine & No- obser- 31 n.a.
renzayan 1999 vation
Helping Helping strangers Levine, Noren- obser- 22 n.a.
zayan, vation
Philbrick 2001
Humane S Humane orienta- Stankov 2015 SWV 33 > 200
tion
Uncertainty S Uncertainty avoi-
dance and future " " " "
orientation
Power dist. S Power distance " " " "
Gender egal. S Gender egalitaria-
" " " "
nism
Contextualism Contextualism Owe et al. conveni- 35 71-566
2013 ence
Autonomy O Autonomy vs.
" " " "
embeddedness
Independence Independence vs.
" " " "
interdependence
Background variables
HDI Human develop- United Nations national 123
ment index, 2018 development statistics
program. 2018
Table 1: list of cultural variables. WVS = World Values Survey (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005).
SWV = Survey of World Views (Saucier et al, 2015).
Variable F1 F2 F3 F4
Individualism -0.71 0.06 -0.06 0.12
Power dist. H 0.77 -0.04 0.06 -0.05
Uncertainty 0.28 0.01 -0.61 -0.38
Masculinity 0.13 -0.01 -0.20 0.34
Long term -0.25 -0.87 -0.05 0.13
Exclusionism 0.88 0.06 -0.10 0.15
Indulgence M -0.41 0.57 -0.08 -0.03
Monumentalism 0.34 0.86 0.03 0.16
Embeddedness 0.79 0.12 0.37 0.05
Hierarchy 0.54 -0.24 0.30 0.36
Mastery 0.32 0.06 0.44 0.34
Secular -0.60 -0.71 -0.01 -0.05
14
Self expression -0.83 0.50 -0.01 -0.05
Performance -0.34 -0.12 0.33 0.55
Future orientation -0.63 -0.03 0.26 0.50
Gender egal. H -0.38 0.07 -0.24 -0.35
Assertiveness -0.12 0.07 -0.71 0.54
Institutional coll. -0.38 -0.34 0.61 0.07
In-group coll. 0.91 -0.06 -0.09 -0.06
Power dist. G 0.44 -0.06 -0.52 -0.12
Humane orient. 0.16 0.30 0.67 -0.14
Proportion of variance 0.30 0.14 0.13 0.08
Table 2: Factor analysis of set 1, unrotated.
8% missing values imputed by expectation maximization.
Variable G1 G2 G3 G4
Nastiness 0.62 0.11 -0.31 0.43
Morality 0.64 0.60 0.21 0.28
Religiosity SL 0.70 0.46 0.19 0.29
Religiosity SS 0.75 0.36 0.10 0.21
Complexity -0.67 0.38 -0.31 0.51
Reward 0.40 0.57 0.19 0.33
Cynicism 0.41 0.49 -0.50 -0.38
Fate Control 0.58 0.14 -0.57 0.15
Egalitarian -0.09 -0.45 0.67 -0.16
Loyal 0.48 0.30 -0.09 -0.17
LOC political -0.05 -0.04 0.18 -0.60
LOC individual 0.01 -0.75 0.66 0.01
Regality 0.94 0.25 -0.08 0.10
Discipline 0.01 -0.72 -0.69 0.00
Sociosexuality -0.31 0.01 0.54 -0.19
Proportion of variance 0.28 0.19 0.17 0.09
Table 3: Factor analysis of set 2, unrotated.
10% missing values imputed by expectation maximization.
15
G1 G2 G3 G4 HDI
F1 0.75‡ 0.57† -0.15 0.34 -0.73‡
0.50* 0.47* -0.52† 0.28
F2 0.03 -0.08 0.80‡ -0.16 -0.34*
-0.13 -0.17 0.79‡ -0.21
F3 0.41* 0.18 -0.17 0.54† -0.07
0.42* 0.13 -0.21 0.53†
F4 0.05 -0.3 -0.07 0.09 0.02
0.18 -0.27 -0.04 0.12
HDI -0.78‡ -0.64‡ 0.19 -0.32 1.00
Table 4: Correlation of factors between set 1 and set 2,
and correlation of factors with human development index (HDI).
The second value in each cell is controlled for HDI.
Levels of significance: * p < 0.05, † p < 0.01, ‡ p < 0.001.
16
Set 1 F1 F2 F3 F4 G1 G2 G3 G4 HDI
Individualism -0.74‡ -0.04 -0.05 0.17 -0.67‡ -0.65‡ 0.49* -0.49* 0.57‡
-0.58‡ 0.20 -0.02 0.19 -0.54† -0.57† 0.68‡ -0.45*
Power dist. H 0.81‡ 0.04 0.05 -0.10 0.75‡ 0.60† -0.13 0.48* -0.62‡
0.66‡ -0.24 0.00 -0.11 0.53† 0.49* -0.39 0.47*
Uncertainty 0.32* 0.07 -0.70‡ -0.57‡ -0.20 0.00 -0.08 -0.35 -0.11
0.35* 0.03 -0.72‡ -0.57‡ -0.30 -0.02 -0.09 -0.37
Masculinity 0.15 -0.01 -0.17 0.40† -0.07 -0.28 0.02 -0.04 0.00
0.21 -0.01 -0.17 0.40† -0.06 -0.29 0.02 -0.04
Long term -0.27 -0.93‡ -0.01 0.18 -0.14 0.03 -0.75‡ 0.14 0.42†
0.08 -0.92‡ 0.03 0.19 0.12 0.19 -0.74‡ 0.23
Exclusionism 0.92‡ 0.20 -0.12 0.09 0.76‡ 0.56† -0.15 0.25 -0.79‡
0.79‡ -0.07 -0.23 0.13 0.55† 0.55† -0.45* 0.27
Indulgence M -0.39† 0.57‡ -0.09 -0.05 -0.37 -0.18 0.37 -0.07 0.07
-0.52‡ 0.64‡ -0.08 -0.05 -0.13 -0.01 0.52† 0.02
Monumentalism 0.33* 0.89‡ -0.05 0.12 0.20 -0.14 0.71‡ -0.28 -0.45†
-0.04 0.88‡ -0.06 0.11 -0.01 -0.28 0.69‡ -0.36
Embeddedness 0.77‡ -0.03 0.28 0.10 0.66† 0.68‡ -0.23 0.63† -0.55‡
0.65‡ -0.08 0.29 0.17 0.57† 0.61† -0.26 0.55*
Hierarchy 0.59‡ -0.43† 0.44† 0.43† 0.51* 0.47* -0.56† 0.60† -0.58‡
0.29 -0.58‡ 0.50† 0.59‡ 0.21 0.06 -0.70‡ 0.44
Mastery 0.23 -0.04 0.57‡ 0.59‡ 0.29 -0.01 -0.08 0.51* -0.22
0.10 -0.06 0.57‡ 0.62‡ 0.24 -0.18 -0.08 0.49*
Secular -0.63‡ -0.77‡ 0.05 0.03 -0.40* -0.23 -0.56† -0.11 0.67‡
-0.24 -0.76‡ 0.13 0.00 -0.09 -0.04 -0.54† 0.00
Self expression -0.80‡ 0.41† -0.01 -0.01 -0.55† -0.38 0.51† -0.27 0.46†
-0.78‡ 0.70‡ 0.02 -0.03 -0.36 -0.24 0.70‡ -0.20
Performance -0.38† -0.23 0.45‡ 0.72‡ -0.02 -0.37 -0.07 0.10 0.35*
-0.20 -0.12 0.51‡ 0.76‡ 0.25 -0.29 -0.01 0.17
Future orientation -0.65‡ -0.15 0.35* 0.58‡ -0.15 -0.29 0.04 0.02 0.39†
-0.58‡ -0.02 0.41† 0.62‡ 0.14 -0.17 0.13 0.11
Gender egal. H -0.42† 0.08 -0.34* -0.49‡ -0.36 -0.08 0.29 -0.17 0.33*
-0.27 0.22 -0.33* -0.52‡ -0.28 0.01 0.36 -0.13
Assertiveness -0.14 0.06 -0.62‡ 0.33* -0.49* -0.57† 0.41* -0.67‡ 0.07
-0.14 0.09 -0.62‡ 0.33* -0.44* -0.52† 0.49* -0.65‡
Institutional coll. -0.42† -0.45‡ 0.65‡ 0.28* 0.10 -0.15 -0.40* 0.24 0.32*
-0.28* -0.38† 0.72‡ 0.29* 0.33 -0.07 -0.38 0.31
In-group coll. 0.90‡ 0.06 -0.11 -0.16 0.70‡ 0.54† -0.19 0.32 -0.58‡
0.86‡ -0.18 -0.18 -0.17 0.44* 0.40* -0.47* 0.24
Power dist. G 0.46‡ -0.01 -0.59‡ -0.27 0.22 -0.02 0.06 -0.23 -0.33*
0.34* -0.13 -0.65‡ -0.28* 0.01 -0.16 0.00 -0.32
Humane orient. 0.16 0.34* 0.69‡ -0.01 0.41* 0.09 0.34 0.24 -0.29*
-0.08 0.26 0.70‡ 0.00 0.20 -0.09 0.28 0.17
Set 2
Nastiness 0.46* -0.31 0.40* 0.07 0.74‡ 0.54† -0.51† 0.74‡ -0.52†
0.27 -0.43* 0.37 0.13 0.62‡ 0.32 -0.48† 0.71‡
Morality 0.65‡ 0.29 0.38 -0.13 0.81‡ 0.78‡ -0.10 0.63‡ -0.73‡
0.23 0.22 0.39 -0.06 0.58‡ 0.59‡ 0.06 0.60‡
Religiosity SL 0.64‡ 0.25 0.32 -0.10 0.85‡ 0.70‡ -0.10 0.65‡ -0.71‡
0.30 0.17 0.29 -0.02 0.67‡ 0.46† 0.06 0.63‡
Religiosity SS 0.60† 0.25 0.48* 0.06 0.85‡ 0.61‡ -0.12 0.53† -0.66‡
0.28 0.18 0.49* 0.16 0.72‡ 0.32 0.02 0.45†
17
Complexity -0.30 -0.28 0.12 -0.11 -0.36* 0.22 -0.35* 0.36* 0.37*
0.05 -0.23 0.20 -0.19 -0.13 0.65‡ -0.46† 0.55†
Reward 0.33 0.32 0.19 -0.24 0.60‡ 0.71‡ -0.06 0.64‡ -0.44†
0.09 0.28 0.15 -0.21 0.45† 0.62‡ 0.03 0.58‡
Cynicism 0.33 -0.25 -0.27 -0.34 0.57‡ 0.69‡ -0.64‡ 0.11 -0.54†
0.32 -0.29 -0.30 -0.32 0.27 0.53† -0.65‡ -0.08
Fate Control 0.45* -0.62‡ 0.44* 0.18 0.68‡ 0.53† -0.70‡ 0.48† -0.49†
0.54† -0.67‡ 0.43* 0.21 0.56‡ 0.32 -0.71‡ 0.39*
Egalitarian -0.71‡ 0.61‡ -0.07 -0.01 -0.38 -0.42 0.75‡ -0.44* 0.31*
-0.65‡ 0.78‡ -0.03 -0.03 -0.34 -0.39 0.74‡ -0.39
Loyal 0.35* 0.12 0.08 0.29 0.50* 0.37 -0.26 0.20 -0.28
0.33 0.08 0.07 0.30 0.57† 0.38 -0.25 0.15
LOC political -0.18 0.13 -0.38* -0.39* -0.47* -0.27 0.42* -0.75‡ 0.15
-0.12 0.17 -0.37* -0.40* -0.55† -0.26 0.41 -0.81‡
LOC individual -0.59‡ 0.37* 0.14 0.08 -0.39 -0.68‡ 0.60† -0.29 0.44†
-0.53† 0.48† 0.19 0.07 -0.25 -0.67‡ 0.59† -0.16
Regality 0.75‡ 0.04 0.40* 0.04 0.96‡ 0.64‡ -0.29 0.50† -0.76‡
0.43* -0.14 0.43* 0.19 0.91‡ 0.31 -0.23 0.42*
Discipline -0.21 -0.68‡ 0.23 0.40* -0.18 -0.43* -0.42* -0.14 0.35*
0.11 -0.67‡ 0.31 0.38 0.15 -0.29 -0.53† -0.03
Sociosexuality -0.48† 0.50† -0.13 -0.16 -0.60† -0.50* 0.86‡ -0.53* 0.35*
-0.69‡ 0.57† -0.14 -0.18 -0.67‡ -0.45* 0.89‡ -0.50*
Set 3
Conservatism 0.85‡ 0.47* 0.38 -0.15 0.75‡ 0.47* 0.18 0.32 -0.80‡
0.63‡ 0.19 0.27 -0.33 0.55* 0.37 0.02 0.28
Harshness 0.16 -0.54† 0.63‡ 0.42* 0.44 0.18 -0.52* 0.41 -0.01
0.17 -0.64‡ 0.64‡ 0.42* 0.58* 0.20 -0.52* 0.43
Indulgence H -0.39† 0.56‡ -0.09 -0.04 -0.41* -0.26 0.39* -0.16 0.22*
-0.52‡ 0.61‡ -0.08 -0.04 -0.17 -0.03 0.37* -0.04
Tightness G 0.38 -0.33 0.40* 0.31 0.65† 0.36 -0.32 0.44 -0.29
0.28 -0.40* 0.39 0.39 0.66† 0.34 -0.33 0.42
Tightness U 0.75‡ 0.03 0.26 0.29 0.70‡ 0.30 -0.24 0.19 -0.60‡
0.53† -0.21 0.25 0.24 0.38 -0.16 -0.18 -0.01
Secular W -0.45† -0.65‡ -0.09 -0.18 -0.48† -0.25 -0.15 0.03 0.60‡
-0.03 -0.60‡ -0.07 -0.23 -0.06 0.13 -0.30 0.27
Emancipative -0.91‡ -0.15 -0.10 -0.08 -0.70‡ -0.52† 0.19 -0.38* 0.67‡
-0.80‡ 0.16 -0.08 -0.13 -0.46* -0.26 0.12 -0.25
Externality 0.64‡ 0.28 0.47† 0.16 0.81‡ 0.74‡ 0.16 0.69‡ -0.70‡
0.38* 0.15 0.49† 0.21 0.71‡ 0.57* 0.11 0.55*
Cynicism B 0.37* -0.50† -0.15 -0.07 0.26 0.35 -0.57† 0.14 -0.23
0.46† -0.53† -0.16 -0.07 0.21 0.35 -0.60† 0.07
Self-directed -0.72‡ -0.45† -0.05 -0.03 -0.38 -0.34 -0.35 -0.11 0.75‡
-0.31 -0.49† 0.26 0.04 0.08 -0.09 -0.40 0.07
Civility -0.44* 0.67‡ -0.21 -0.10 -0.37 -0.34 0.62‡ -0.33 0.22
-0.40* 0.75‡ -0.16 -0.09 -0.29 -0.26 0.66‡ -0.29
Integration -0.73‡ 0.03 -0.31 0.00 -0.85‡ -0.83‡ 0.54* -0.79‡ 0.69‡
-0.56* 0.33 -0.41 -0.07 -0.68† -0.61* 0.68† -0.63*
Confucian 0.34 -0.74‡ 0.11 0.14 0.19 0.23 -0.65† 0.32 0.35
0.62† -0.75‡ 0.10 0.12 0.23 0.31 -0.65† 0.38
Human -0.21 0.19 0.22 0.30 -0.36 -0.62* 0.30 -0.46 0.29
-0.08 0.30 0.22 0.29 -0.09 -0.52 0.30 -0.28
Moral 0.61† -0.38 -0.11 0.01 0.38 0.33 -0.40 0.38 -0.15
0.60† -0.55* -0.10 0.04 0.34 0.28 -0.39 0.32
18
Individual B -0.91‡ -0.26 -0.07 -0.13 -0.78‡ -0.55† 0.13 -0.39* 0.67‡
-0.80‡ -0.04 0.02 -0.20 -0.51† -0.23 0.01 -0.26
Joy -0.56‡ 0.47‡ 0.04 0.04 -0.53† -0.39* 0.43* -0.17 0.42‡
-0.48‡ 0.64‡ 0.08 0.06 -0.14 -0.07 0.42* 0.02
Trust -0.34* -0.35* 0.59‡ 0.46† 0.31 0.17 -0.31 0.26 0.10
-0.29 -0.31* 0.62‡ 0.48‡ 0.42* 0.18 -0.31 0.26
Confidence 0.29 -0.49* 0.40 0.37 0.51 0.33 -0.66† 0.72† -0.42
0.02 -0.51* 0.42 0.30 0.40 0.10 -0.71† 0.67*
Hierarchy F 0.51† -0.31 0.50† 0.47* 0.65† 0.47 -0.64† 0.64† -0.58†
0.18 -0.30 0.62‡ 0.53† 0.46 0.04 -0.74† 0.48
Individual M -0.83‡ -0.22 -0.16 -0.04 -0.82‡ -0.81‡ 0.07 -0.56† 0.87‡
-0.60‡ -0.02 -0.20 -0.13 -0.62‡ -0.50† 0.19 -0.40*
Flexibility -0.29 -0.70‡ 0.29 0.18 -0.15 -0.31 -0.64‡ 0.05 0.57‡
0.23 -0.71‡ 0.41† 0.20 0.37 0.19 -0.74‡ 0.37
Polarization 0.02 0.41* 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.26 0.09 -0.25 -0.35*
-0.14 0.39* 0.11 0.10 -0.11 0.02 0.19 -0.41
Long term MH -0.19 -0.84‡ 0.31 0.29 0.02 0.16 -0.76‡ 0.51* 0.17
0.11 -0.83‡ 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.38 -0.80‡ 0.58*
Familialism 0.83‡ 0.11 0.00 0.44 0.89‡ 0.52* -0.16 0.24 -0.67‡
0.68† -0.10 -0.03 0.48* 0.70† 0.13 -0.16 0.19
K factor -0.04 -0.70‡ 0.21 0.02 0.21 0.13 -0.63‡ 0.29 0.40‡
0.43† -0.65‡ 0.29 0.03 0.39* 0.20 -0.63‡ 0.33
Conservatism S 0.63‡ 0.06 0.35 -0.05 0.73† 0.66† -0.18 0.75‡ -0.38*
0.57† -0.01 0.41* 0.06 0.69† 0.62* -0.22 0.72†
Pace 0.64‡ 0.29 -0.05 -0.15 0.38 0.48 0.13 0.34 -0.77‡
0.20 0.16 0.04 0.23 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.15
Helping 0.05 0.05 -0.29 -0.32 -0.28 0.06 -0.02 -0.17 -0.36
-0.39 -0.04 -0.29 -0.31 -0.76* -0.47 -0.14 -0.65*
Humane S 0.29 0.33 0.47* 0.13 0.57‡ 0.34 -0.02 0.31 -0.38*
0.12 0.30 0.45* 0.17 0.48† 0.14 0.06 0.21
Uncertainty S -0.14 -0.01 0.63‡ 0.53† 0.40* 0.20 -0.09 0.39* -0.08
-0.18 0.00 0.64‡ 0.53† 0.53† 0.20 -0.08 0.39*
Power dist. S 0.57† 0.05 -0.19 -0.51† 0.34 0.68‡ -0.33 0.41* -0.37*
0.48* -0.02 -0.27 -0.50* 0.09 0.63‡ -0.28 0.33
Gender egal. S -0.65‡ 0.10 -0.16 -0.25 -0.65‡ -0.45† 0.40* -0.16 0.70‡
-0.37 0.26 -0.09 -0.41* -0.24 0.00 0.38* 0.10
Contextualism 0.46* 0.23 0.35 0.24 0.70† 0.67† -0.06 0.68† -0.46†
0.26 0.19 0.29 0.24 0.49 0.43 -0.05 0.56*
Autonomy O -0.51* 0.23 -0.13 -0.18 -0.44 -0.36 0.17 -0.34 0.43*
-0.37 0.32 -0.04 -0.17 -0.27 -0.15 0.17 -0.19
Independence -0.36 0.11 -0.40 -0.02 -0.43 -0.55* 0.16 -0.36 0.19
-0.18 0.18 -0.35 0.01 -0.28 -0.44 0.16 -0.24
Table 5: Correlation of variables with factors from table 2 and 3 and with HDI.
The second value in each cell is controlled for HDI.
Levels of significance: * p < 0.05, † p < 0.01, ‡ p < 0.001.
19
References
Beugelsdijk, S., & Welzel, C. (2018). Dimensions and Dynamics of National Culture:
Synthesizing Hofstede With Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(10),
1469–1505.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K.-K., De Carrasquel, S. R., Murakami, F., … Broer,
M. (2004). Culture-level Dimensions of Social Axioms and their Correlates across 41
Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(5), 548–570.
Bond, M. H., & Lun, V. M.-C. (2014). Citizen-making: The role of national goals for
socializing children. Social Science Research, 44, 75–85.
Chinese Culture Connection (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free
dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2), 143–164.
Fang, T. (2003). A critique of Hofstede’s fifth national culture dimension. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(3), 347–368.
Fischer, R. (2013). Gene-Environment Interactions are Associated with Endorsement of
Social Hierarchy Values and Beliefs across Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 44(7), 1107–1121.
Fog, A. (2017). Warlike and Peaceful Societies: The Interaction of Genes and Culture. Open
Book Publishers.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … others. (2011).
Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study. Science, 332
(6033), 1100–1104.
Guo, T., & Spina, R. (2019). Cross-Cultural Variations in Extreme Rejecting and Extreme
Affirming Response Styles. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(8), 955–971.
Harzing, A. W. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research: A 26-country
study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(2), 243–266.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of
the mind (3. ed.). McGraw-Hill.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage
publications.
Inglehart, R. (2018). Cultural Evolution. Peoples Motivations are Changing and Reshaping
the World. Cambridge University Press.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The
Human Development Sequence. Cambridge University Press.
Levine, R. V., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 30(2), 178–205.
Levine, R. V., Norenzayan, A., & Philbrick, K. (2001). Cross-cultural differences in helping
strangers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 543–560.
Li, L. M. W., & Bond, M. H. (2010). Value Change: Analyzing National Change in Citizen
Secularism Across Four Time Periods in the World Values Survey. The Social
Science Journal, 47(2), 294–306.
Maleki, A., & de Jong, M. (2014). A proposal for clustering the dimensions of national
culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 48(2), 107–143.
Minkov, M. (2009). Nations with more dialectical selves exhibit lower polarization in life
quality judgments and social opinions. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(3), 230–250.
Minkov, M. (2011). Cultural Differences in a Globalizing World. Emerald.
Minkov, M. (2013). Cross-cultural Analysis: The Science and Art of Comparing the World’s
Modern Societies and their Cultures. Sage.
Minkov, M. (2014). The K factor, societal hypometropia, and national values: A study of 71
nations. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 153–159.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012). Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence from the World
Values Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 3–14.
20
Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., … Mudd, B.
(2017). A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: A new national
index from a 56-country study. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(3), 386–
404.
Minkov, M., Bond, M. H., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J.,
Khassenbekov, Y., & Mudd, B. (2018). A reconsideration of Hofstede’s fifth
dimension: New flexibility versus monumentalism data from 54 countries. Cross-
Cultural Research, 52(3), 309–333.
Nardon, L., & Steers, R. M. (2009). The culture theory jungle: Divergence and convergence
in models of national culture. In R. S. Bhagat & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge
Handbook of Culture, Organizations, and Work (pp. 3–22). Cambridge University
Press.
Nisbett, R. (2004). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently...
and why. Simon and Schuster.
Owe, E., Vignoles, V. L., Becker, M., Brown, R., Smith, P. B., Lee, S. W., Easterbrook, M.,
Gadre, T., Zhang, X., & Gheorghiu, M. (2013). Contextualism as an important facet of
individualism-collectivism: Personhood beliefs across 37 national groups. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 24–45.
Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (2013). Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and
implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9), 867–897.
Saucier, G., Kenner, J., Iurino, K., Malham, P. B., Chen, Z., Thalmayer, A. G., … others.
(2015). Cross-Cultural Differences in a Global “Survey of World Views.” Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 53–70.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex,
culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–
275.
Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
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). Sage
publications.
Schwartz, S. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications.
Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.
Smith, P. B., Trompenaars, F., & Dugan, S. (1995). The Rotter locus of control scale in 43
countries: A test of cultural relativity. International Journal of Psychology, 30(3), 377–
400.
Stankov, L. (2015). Four GLOBE dimensions of perceived social norms in 33 countries.
Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 30–42.
Stankov, L., & Lee, J. (2015). Toward a Psychological Atlas of the World with Mixture
Modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(2), 249–262.
Stankov, L., Lee, J., & van de Vijver, F. (2014). Two Dimensions of Psychological Country-
level Differences: Conservatism/Liberalism and Harshness/Softness. Learning and
Individual Differences, 30, 22–33.
Stankov, L., & Saucier, G. (2015). Social Axioms in 33 Countries. Good Replicability at the
Individual but Less So at the Country Level. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
46(2), 296–315.
Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of measuring culture: Review of
approaches, challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments for
quantifying culture. Journal of International Management, 15(4), 357–373.
United Nations Development Programme (2018). Human Development Reports. (Data for
2015)
Uz, I. (2015). The Index of Cultural Tightness and Looseness Among 68 Countries. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(6), 319–335.
Welzel, C. (2013). Freedom rising. Cambridge University Press.
21
World Values Survey (2019). Cultural Map.
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp Accessed Feb. 2020.
22
Online supplement
Table of contents
Table S1. List of cultural variables with explanations or interpretations
Table S2. Two factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.

Table S3. Two factor solution for sample 1 and 2, quartimax rotation.
Table S4. Two factor solution for sample 1 and 2, varimax rotation.
Table S5. Two factor solution for sample 1 and 2, promax rotation.
Table S6. Three factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.

Table S7. Three factor solution for sample 1 and 2, quartimax rotation.
Table S8. Three factor solution for sample 1 and 2, varimax rotation.
Table S9. Three factor solution for sample 1 and 2, promax rotation.
Table S10. Four factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.

Table S11. Four factor solution for sample 1 and 2, quartimax rotation.
Table S12. Four factor solution for sample 1 and 2, varimax rotation.
Table S13. Four factor solution for sample 1 and 2, promax rotation.
Table S14. Five factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.

Table S15. Five factor solution for sample 1 and 2, quartimax rotation.
Table S16. Five factor solution for sample 1 and 2, varimax rotation.
Table S16. Five factor solution for sample 1 and 2, promax rotation.
Level of significance, two-tailed:

*: p < 0.05, †: p < 0.01, ‡: p < 0.001
23
Tables
Short name Full name Reference Sample Coun Respon-
type tries dents per
country
Set 1
Individualism Individualism vs Hofstede, business 69 2000
collectivism Hofstede &
Minkov 2010
Individualism: importance of autonomy. Collectivism: Importance of interdependent social
units. Measured in context of a business organization.
Power dist. H Power distance " " " "
Perception and accept of social inequality. Relationship between managers and subordinates
in business organizations.
Uncertainty Uncertainty
" " " "
avoidance
Uncertainty and ambiguity are undesired, causing stress and anxiety. Preference for fixed
rules. Measured in context of a business organization
Masculinity Masculinity vs
" " " "
femininity
Masculinity: assertiveness, competition, traditional gender roles. Femininity: Importance of
personal relationships, negotiation, caring, quality of life, feelings.
Long term Long term
" " " "
orientation
Thrift, perseverance, accountability, focus on future profit in business, holistic thinking.
Exclusionism Exclusionism vs Minkov 2011 national 86 n.a.
universalism statistics
Exclusionism: favorization of family or friends. Universalism: same rules apply to all, including
strangers
Indulgence M Indulgence vs WVS 43 > 1000
"
industry
Indulgence: Importance of leisure. Industry: priority for hard work and thrift.
Monumentalism Monumentalism WVS 43 > 1000
"
vs flexumility
Monumentalism: pride, immutable identities, values, and norms. Flexumility = flexibility and
humility: easy adaption to new norms and ideas.
Embeddedness Embeddedness Schwartz mixed 36 180-280
vs autonomy 2006; Maleki &
de Jong 2014
Embeddedness: people are viewed as entities embedded in the collectivity with shared goals.
Autonomy: people are unique and autonomous.
Hierarchy Hierarchy vs 36
" "
egalitarianism
Hierarchy: hierarchical social system with unequal distribution of power. Egalitarianism: social
justice, people are recognized as moral equals.
Mastery Mastery vs 36
" "
harmony
Mastery: mastery over natural and social environment. Harmony: peace, unity with nature,
and protecting the environment.
Secular Secular/rational Inglehart & WVS 97 > 1000
vs. traditional Welzel 2005
values
Secular/rational: less emphasis on religion, traditional family values and authority. Traditional:
respect for authority, obedience, national pride, religiousness.
Self expression Self-expression 97 > 1000
" "
vs. survival val.
Self-expression: priority to well-being and quality of life. Survival: priority to economic and
physical security.
24
Performance Performance House et al. business 58 > 200
orientation, as is 2004
Encouragement of high performance, innovation, and competitiveness.
Future orientation Future orientation,
" " " "
as is
Delayed gratification and planning for the future are valued over short-term gains.
Gender egal. H Gender egalitaria-
" " " "
nism, as is
Equality between men and women.
Assertiveness Assertiveness, as
" " " "
is
The degree to which individuals are forceful, confrontational, and aggressive, as opposed to
cooperative and compassionate.
Institutional coll. Institutional col-
" " " "
lectivism, as is
Group loyalty and the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups and
organizations.
In-group coll. In-group collecti-
" " " "
vism, as is
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their families.
Power dist. G Power distance,
" " " "
as is
Acceptance of unequal distribution of power and privilege.
Humane orient. Humane orienta-
" " " "
tion, as is
The valuation of fairness, altruism, generosity, and kindness.
Set 2
Nastiness Nastiness Stankov & Lee SWV 33 250
2015
Acceptance of violence and revenge to solve social conflicts. Use of dubious means to
achieve selfish and materialistic goals. Life is seen as unjust and unfair.
Morality Morality " " " "
Acceptance of acculturated values and morals to minimize social friction.
Religiosity SL Religiosity " " " "
Religious behavior and feelings, and the role of religion in society.
Religiosity SS Religiosity Stankov & SWV 33 > 200
Saucier 2015
Acceptance of the existence of a supernatural being and the beneficial functions of religious
practice.
Complexity Social complexity " " " "
Belief that people’s behavior may vary across situations and that problems have multiple
solutions.
Reward Reward for Appli-
" " " "
cation
Belief in the efficacy of individual use of effort, knowledge, planning, and other resources.
Cynicism Social cynicism " " " "
Lack of trust that engagement with the social world leads to beneficial outcomes. Experience
of an unjust world.
Fate Control Fate control " " " "
Belief that life events are pre-determined by fatalistic forces, but that people may be able to
influence their fate.
Egalitarian Egalitarian com- Smith 1995, student 43 > 200
mitment vs Minkov 2013
conservatism
Voluntary commitment to promoting the welfare of other people. Social justice, responsibility,
loyalty
Loyal Loyal vs utilitarian
" " " "
involvement
25
Loyal involvement: work as a team with equal distribution of rewards and punishments.
Utilitarian involvement: work alone rather than as a team.
LOC political Political-personal
" " " "
locus of control
Degree to which people believe that they can control their own life events. Individual
responsibility versus political or organizational efficacy.
LOC individual Individual-social
" " " "
locus of control
Degree to which people believe that they can control their own life events. Whether
misfortune comes from own mistakes or bad luck. Individual freedom.
Regality Regality Fog 2017 SWV 33 > 200
Fear of collective danger. Hierarchy, nationalism, strict discipline, punitiveness, xenophobia,
low tolerance, strict religiousness, strict sexual morals.
Discipline Discipline vs
" " " "
violence
Interpersonal conflicts are solved by an efficient legal system versus by violent conflicts or
vendettas.
Sociosexuality Sociosexuality Schmitt 2005 conveni- 46 78-608
ence
Liberal sexual morals, promiscuity.
Set 3
Conservatism Conservatism vs Stankov, Lee conveni- 33 9-430
liberalism & Vijver 2014 ence
Traditionalism, conformism, security, and power.
Harshness Harshness vs 34
" " "
softness
Tough and malicious social attitudes, tight regulation, low tolerance for deviation.
Indulgence H Indulgence vs Hofstede 2010 business 93 2000
restraint
Indulgence: happiness, personal life control, leisure, loose society, extroversion, optimism.
Restraint: helplessness, thrift, tight society, moral discipline, cynicism, neuroticism,
pessimism.
Tightness G Tight vs loose Gelfand et al. mixed 32 200
cultures 2011
Tight: strong social norms, autocracy, restricted media, severe punishment, strong religiosity.
Loose: permissive, tolerance of deviant behavior, individual freedom.
Tightness U Cultural tightness, Uz 2015 WVS 68 > 1000
combined
Tight: Homogeneity in values, norms, and behavior. Loose: tolerance for deviation, variance
in survey responses.
Secular W Secular values Welzel 2013 WVS 94 > 1000
Low religiosity, little respect for patrimonial and state authority, little national pride.
Emancipative Emancipative 96
" " "
values
Autonomy, freedom of choice, equality, freedom of speech, political participation.
Externality Dynamic Bond et al student 42 64-710
externality 2004
Reward for application, religiosity, fate control, social complexity.
Cynicism B Societal cynicism " " " "
A negative view of human nature, unhappiness, mistrust.
Self-directed Self-directedness Bond & Lun WVS 55 > 1000
vs other-directed- 2014
ness
Determination, perseverance, responsibility, independence, imagination.
Civility Civility vs practi-
" " " "
cality
Civility: unselfishness, tolerance and respect for other people. Practicality: thrift, saving
money and things.
26
Integration Integration Chinese cul- student 22 > 100
ture con-
nection 1987
Tolerance, harmony, solidarity, close friendship versus competitiveness, filial piety,
patriotism, chastity.
Confucian Confucian work
" " " "
dynamism
Ordering relationships, thrift, persistence, sense of shame versus reciprocation, personal
steadiness, protecting face, respect for tradition.
Human Human hearted-
" " " "
ness
Kindness, patience, and courtesy versus righteousness and patriotism.
Moral Moral discipline " " " "
Moderation, disinterestedness, purity, and having few desires versus adaptability and
prudence.
Individual B Individualism vs Beugelsdijk & WVS 104 > 1000
collectivism Welzel 2018
Identification as autonomous personalities versus members of tightly knit communities.
Joy joy vs duty " " " "
Joy: enjoying life, democracy, creativity, imagination. Duty: hard work, trust in experts.
Trust Trust vs distrust " " 102 "
Trust: work is a duty, obedience, trust in democracy. Distrust: right wing, distrust in politics
and democracy.
Confidence Support of central Fischer 2013 conveni- 21 > 100
authority ence
Confidence in and support for government.
Hierarchy F Hierarchical domi- 28
" " "
nance values
Support for social dominance, endorsement of hierarchical organizations.
Individual M Individualism vs Minkov et al consumer 55 100-8400
collectivism 2017 panels
Collectivism: The degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups.
Flexibility Flexibility vs Minkov et al. consumer 54 100-8400
monumentalism 2018 panels
Flexibility: adaptability, a modest opinion of one's self, self-reliance, independence.
Monumentalism: encourage people to be like a monolithic monument: proud, stable, and
consistent.
Polarization Social polarization Minkov 2009 mixed 47 500-3000
Political polarization. Polarization in the expression of quality judgments.
Long term MH Long term orien- Minkov & WVS 38 > 1000
tation Hofstede 2012
Importance of thrift and perseverance, reciprocation of favors, future orientation.
Familialism Familialism Minkov 2013 " " "
Focus on a cohesive family, collectivism, traditionalism.
K factor K factor vs Minkov 2014 WVS 71 > 1000
hypometropia
Hypometropia: A short-term oriented, risk-accepting strategy in mating competition that may
involve violence. K factor: the opposite.
Conservatism S Conservatism vs Schwartz 1994 conveni- 31 > 100
autonomy ence
Conservatism: group identification, propriety, moderation, social order, security, reciprocation
of favors, self-discipline, obedience, honoring elders. Autonomy: individual rights, self-
interest, curiosity, creativity, varied life, individual thought, feeling, and action.
Pace Pace of life Levine & No- obser- 31 n.a.
renzayan 1999 vation
Walking speed, postal speed, clock accuracy.
27
Helping Helping strangers Levine, Noren- obser- 22 n.a.
zayan, vation
Philbrick 2001
Observed helping of strangers in need on city streets.
Humane S Humane orienta- Stankov 2015 SWV 33 > 200
tion
Encouragement of being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others.
Uncertainty S Uncertainty avoi-
dance and future " " " "
orientation
Avoidance of uncertainty by relying on established social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic
practices.
Power dist. S Power distance " " " "
Agreement that power should be stratified and concentrated at higher levels of an
organization or government.
Gender egal. S Gender egalitaria-
" " " "
nism
Minimization of gender role differences and promotion of gender equality.
Contextualism Contextualism Owe et al. conveni- 35 71-566
2013 ence
Perceived importance of context in understanding people, including social and relational
context, social position, and physical environment.
Autonomy O Autonomy vs.
" " " "
embeddedness
Autonomy: people should express their own preferences, feelings, ideas, and intellectual
directions. Embeddedness: Meaning in life comes through identifying with the group and
striving toward its shared goals.
Independence Independence vs.
" " " "
interdependence
Self construal by reference to one’s own thoughts, feelings, and actions, versus the thoughts,
feelings, and actions of group.
Background variables
HDI Human develop- United Nations national 123
ment index, 2018 development statistics
program. 2018
Composite measure of gross national income, life expectancy, and education for a country.
Table S1: list of cultural variables. The explanations below each variable are
merely interpretations. Exact definitions are rarely given in the original publications.
28
Sample 1 Factor F1 Factor F2
IndividualismH -0.70 -0.15
PowerDistH 0.74 0.19
UncertaintyH 0.25 0.08
MasculinityH 0.13 0.03
LongtermH -0.01 -0.88
ExclusionismM 0.82 0.29
IndulgenceM -0.55 0.46
MonumentalismM 0.11 0.90
EmbeddednessS 0.73 0.32
HierarchyS 0.57 -0.06
MasteryS 0.31 0.14
SecularI -0.39 -0.86
SelfexprI -0.94 0.28
PerformanceG -0.27 -0.19
FutureG -0.57 -0.18
GenderG -0.39 -0.04
AssertivenessG -0.10 0.02
InstitutionalCollG -0.26 -0.42
IngroupColG 0.90 0.19
PowerDistG 0.44 0.06
HumaneG 0.08 0.30
Square sum loadings 5.73 3.27
proportion variance 0.27 0.16 0.43
Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2

NastiStan 0.78 -0.13
ReligStan3 0.77 0.46
MoralStan 0.74 0.57
Complexity -0.30 0.06
Reward 0.53 0.54
Cynicism1 0.52 0.01
FateControl 0.74 -0.29
EgalVsConserv -0.39 0.14
LoyalVsUtil 0.49 0.15
LOCpolitical -0.25 0.10
LOCindividual -0.34 -0.08
Regality 0.94 0.12
DisciplineFog 0.01 -1.00
Sociosexuality -0.47 0.38
Correlation of factors between two samples

G1 G2 HDI
F1 0.74‡ 0.29 -0.70‡
F2 0.19 0.77‡ -0.63‡
HDI -0.74‡ -0.56‡ 1
Table S2: Two factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.
29
LongtermH 0.00 -0.88
MasteryS 0.31 0.14
FutureG -0.57 -0.18
GenderG -0.39 -0.04
HumaneG 0.08 0.30
proportion variance 0.27 0.16

NastiStan 0.72 -0.33
MoralStan 0.86 0.36
Complexity -0.27 0.14
Reward 0.65 0.38
Cynicism1 0.50 -0.13
FateControl 0.64 -0.48
EgalVsConserv -0.34 0.24
LOCpolitical -0.22 0.16
LOCindividual -0.35 0.01
Regality 0.94 -0.13
DisciplineFog -0.26 -0.97
Sociosexuality -0.35 0.49

G1 G2 HDI
F1 0.73‡ -0.10 -0.69‡
F2 0.29 0.72‡ -0.64‡
HDI -0.76‡ -0.12 1
Table S3: Two factor solution for sample 1 and 2, quartimax rotation.
30
MasteryS 0.30 0.16
FutureG -0.56 -0.22
GenderG -0.38 -0.07
HumaneG 0.06 0.31

NastiStan 0.37 0.70
MoralStan 0.90 0.24
Complexity -0.13 -0.27
Reward 0.75 0.09
Cynicism1 0.32 0.41
FateControl 0.22 0.77
EgalVsConserv -0.12 -0.39
LOCpolitical -0.08 -0.26
Regality 0.67 0.67
DisciplineFog -0.79 0.61
Sociosexuality 0.02 -0.60

G1 G2 HDI
F1 0.65‡ 0.68‡ -0.68‡
F2 0.56† -0.06 -0.67‡
HDI -0.78‡ -0.61‡ 1
Table S4: Two factor solution for sample 1 and 2, varimax rotation.
31
MonumentalismM -0.14 0.95
MasteryS 0.28 0.12
FutureG -0.54 -0.13
GenderG -0.39 -0.01
HumaneG 0 0.31

NastiStan 0.19 0.69
ReligStan3 0.79 0.2
MoralStan 0.89 0.09
Complexity -0.06 -0.27
Reward 0.77 -0.04
Cynicism1 0.22 0.38
FateControl 0.01 0.79
EgalVsConserv -0.02 -0.4
LOCpolitical -0.01 -0.27
Regality 0.51 0.6
DisciplineFog -1.02 0.82
Sociosexuality 0.19 -0.66

G1 G2 HDI
F1 0.49* 0.67‡ -0.64‡
F2 0.55† -0.37 -0.56‡
HDI -0.75‡ -0.53† 1
Table S5: Two factor solution for sample 1 and 2, promax rotation.
32
Sample 1 Factor F1 Factor F2 Factor F3
IndividualismH -0.7 -0.13 0.03
PowerDistH 0.74 0.16 0.01
UncertaintyH 0.26 0.08 -0.71
MasculinityH 0.13 0.02 -0.04
LongtermH -0.03 -0.89 -0.01
ExclusionismM 0.83 0.26 -0.04
IndulgenceM -0.54 0.47 -0.07
MonumentalismM 0.13 0.9 0.08
EmbeddednessS 0.74 0.3 0.36
HierarchyS 0.57 -0.09 0.42
MasteryS 0.31 0.13 0.57
SecularI -0.42 -0.85 -0.03
SelfexprI -0.93 0.3 -0.02
PerformanceG -0.28 -0.2 0.5
FutureG -0.58 -0.17 0.42
GenderG -0.39 -0.03 -0.33
AssertivenessG -0.11 0.03 -0.36
InstitutionalCollG -0.28 -0.43 0.55
IngroupColG 0.9 0.17 -0.14
PowerDistG 0.44 0.05 -0.56
HumaneG 0.09 0.3 0.52
Square sum loadings 5.80 3.24 2.72
proportion variance 0.28 0.15 0.13 0.56
Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3

NastiStan 0.67 0.11 -0.31
ReligStan3 0.74 0.46 0.18
MoralStan 0.67 0.6 0.19
Complexity -0.57 0.38 -0.31
ReligStan4 0.78 0.36 0.09
Reward 0.45 0.57 0.18
Cynicism1 0.34 0.49 -0.51
FateControl 0.6 0.14 -0.57
EgalVsConserv -0.11 -0.43 0.67
LoyalVsUtil 0.45 0.3 -0.1
LOCpolitical -0.14 -0.03 0.18
LOCindividual 0.01 -0.74 0.67
Regality 0.95 0.25 -0.09
DisciplineFog 0.01 -0.73 -0.68
Sociosexuality -0.34 0.02 0.54

G1 G2 G3 HDI
F1 0.72‡ 0.57† -0.27 -0.70‡
F2 0.31 0.17 0.67‡ -0.61‡
F3 0.35 0.05 -0.14 -0.04
HDI -0.77‡ -0.65‡ 0.21 1
Table S6: Three factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.
33
PowerDistH 0.73 0.19 -0.06
LongtermH 0 -0.89 0.05
IndulgenceM -0.56 0.45 -0.06
MonumentalismM 0.1 0.91 0.02
HierarchyS 0.61 -0.04 0.38
MasteryS 0.35 0.18 0.53
SecularI -0.38 -0.86 0.06
SelfexprI -0.94 0.27 0.04
FutureG -0.54 -0.17 0.48
GenderG -0.41 -0.06 -0.29
AssertivenessG -0.14 0 -0.35
PowerDistG 0.39 0.03 -0.6
HumaneG 0.12 0.34 0.49

NastiStan 0.66 0.17 -0.31
ReligStan3 0.85 0.03 0.25
MoralStan 0.84 0.12 0.37
Complexity -0.43 0.58 0.19
ReligStan4 0.86 0.02 0.11
Reward 0.61 0.16 0.4
Cynicism1 0.46 0.63 -0.11
LoyalVsUtil 0.52 0.18 0.02
LOCindividual -0.2 -0.98 -0.04
Regality 0.97 0.04 -0.13
DisciplineFog -0.25 0.01 -0.97
Sociosexuality -0.29 -0.31 0.47

G1 G2 G3 HDI
F1 0.75‡ 0.38 -0.08 -0.70‡
F2 0.37 -0.39* 0.70‡ -0.64‡
F3 0.17 0.02 -0.29 0.13
HDI -0.78‡ -0.38* -0.17 1
Table S7: Three factor solution for sample 1 and 2, quartimax rotation.
34
PowerDistH 0.73 0.18 -0.11
LongtermH 0 -0.89 0.06
IndulgenceM -0.56 0.45 -0.03
MonumentalismM 0.11 0.91 -0.01
HierarchyS 0.63 -0.04 0.34
MasteryS 0.39 0.18 0.51
SecularI -0.39 -0.86 0.1
SelfexprI -0.94 0.27 0.09
FutureG -0.51 -0.15 0.51
GenderG -0.43 -0.06 -0.26
AssertivenessG -0.16 -0.01 -0.34
PowerDistG 0.35 0.01 -0.62
HumaneG 0.15 0.35 0.48

NastiStan 0.43 0.61 0.03
ReligStan3 0.87 0.19 0.05
MoralStan 0.91 0.11 -0.08
Complexity -0.27 -0.17 -0.68
ReligStan4 0.81 0.31 0.09
Reward 0.73 0 -0.16
Cynicism1 0.36 0.49 -0.49
LOCindividual -0.22 -0.36 0.91
Regality 0.79 0.57 0.15
DisciplineFog -0.69 0.7 0.2
Sociosexuality -0.04 -0.62 0.13

G1 G2 G3 HDI
F1 0.70‡ 0.64‡ -0.21 -0.70‡
F2 0.51† -0.28 0.41* -0.63‡
F3 0 0.2 0.09 0.21
HDI -0.79‡ -0.54† 0.26 1
Table S8: Three factor solution for sample 1 and 2, varimax rotation.
35
PowerDistH 0.71 0.11 -0.12
UncertaintyH 0.14 -0.02 -0.75
LongtermH 0.19 -0.92 0.05
IndulgenceM -0.67 0.53 -0.02
MonumentalismM -0.08 0.93 0.01
HierarchyS 0.66 -0.09 0.33
MasteryS 0.36 0.17 0.51
SecularI -0.21 -0.85 0.09
SelfexprI -1.02 0.39 0.11
FutureG -0.49 -0.09 0.52
GenderG -0.43 -0.03 -0.26
AssertivenessG -0.17 0 -0.34
PowerDistG 0.35 -0.05 -0.63
HumaneG 0.09 0.36 0.48

NastiStan 0.34 0.56 0.03
ReligStan3 0.9 0.02 0.07
MoralStan 0.94 -0.1 -0.05
Complexity -0.34 -0.23 -0.7
ReligStan4 0.81 0.16 0.12
Reward 0.76 -0.19 -0.14
Cynicism1 0.23 0.36 -0.51
EgalVsConserv 0.06 -0.39 0.65
LOCindividual -0.05 -0.18 0.94
Regality 0.75 0.45 0.17
DisciplineFog -0.85 0.92 0.17
Sociosexuality 0.1 -0.62 0.14

G1 G2 G3 HDI
F1 0.57† 0.59† -0.26 -0.66‡
F2 0.55† -0.52† 0.48* -0.55‡
F3 -0.02 0.24 0.1 0.21
HDI -0.78‡ -0.39* 0.23 1
Table S9: Three factor solution for sample 1 and 2, promax rotation.
36
Sample 1 Factor F1 Factor F2 Factor F3 Factor F4
IndividualismH -0.71 0.06 -0.06 0.12
PowerDistH 0.77 -0.04 0.06 -0.05
UncertaintyH 0.28 0.01 -0.61 -0.38
MasculinityH 0.13 -0.01 -0.20 0.34
LongtermH -0.25 -0.87 -0.05 0.13
ExclusionismM 0.88 0.06 -0.10 0.15
IndulgenceM -0.41 0.57 -0.08 -0.03
MonumentalismM 0.34 0.86 0.03 0.16
EmbeddednessS 0.79 0.12 0.37 0.05
HierarchyS 0.54 -0.24 0.30 0.36
MasteryS 0.32 0.06 0.44 0.34
SecularI -0.60 -0.71 -0.01 -0.05
SelfexprI -0.83 0.50 -0.01 -0.05
PerformanceG -0.34 -0.12 0.33 0.55
FutureG -0.63 -0.03 0.26 0.50
GenderG -0.38 0.07 -0.24 -0.35
AssertivenessG -0.12 0.07 -0.71 0.54
InstitutionalCollG -0.38 -0.34 0.61 0.07
IngroupColG 0.91 -0.06 -0.09 -0.06
PowerDistG 0.44 -0.06 -0.52 -0.12
HumaneG 0.16 0.30 0.67 -0.14
Square sum loadings 6.24 2.90 2.70 1.60
proportion variance 0.30 0.14 0.13 0.08 0.64
Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3 Factor G4

NastiStan 0.62 0.11 -0.31 0.43
ReligStan3 0.70 0.46 0.19 0.29
MoralStan 0.64 0.60 0.21 0.28
Complexity -0.67 0.38 -0.31 0.51
ReligStan4 0.75 0.36 0.10 0.21
Reward 0.40 0.57 0.19 0.33
Cynicism1 0.41 0.49 -0.50 -0.38
FateControl 0.58 0.14 -0.57 0.15
EgalVsConserv -0.09 -0.45 0.67 -0.16
LoyalVsUtil 0.48 0.30 -0.09 -0.17
LOCpolitical -0.05 -0.04 0.18 -0.60
LOCindividual 0.01 -0.75 0.66 0.01
Regality 0.94 0.25 -0.08 0.10
DisciplineFog 0.01 -0.72 -0.69 0.00
Sociosexuality -0.31 0.01 0.54 -0.19

G1 G2 G3 G4 HDI
F1 0.75‡ 0.57† -0.15 0.34 -0.73‡
F2 0.03 -0.08 0.80‡ -0.16 -0.34*
F3 0.41* 0.18 -0.17 0.54† -0.07
F4 0.05 -0.30 -0.07 0.09 0.02
HDI -0.78‡ -0.64‡ 0.19 -0.32 1
Table S10: Four factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.
37
IndividualismH -0.69 -0.12 0.15 0.14
PowerDistH 0.74 0.17 -0.10 -0.09
UncertaintyH 0.19 0.03 -0.71 0.23
MasculinityH 0.15 0.04 0.12 0.36
LongtermH 0.01 -0.90 0.14 0.13
ExclusionismM 0.83 0.29 -0.07 0.16
IndulgenceM -0.55 0.43 -0.04 0.05
MonumentalismM 0.10 0.93 0.05 0.07
EmbeddednessS 0.75 0.34 0.15 -0.26
HierarchyS 0.63 -0.05 0.39 -0.01
MasteryS 0.36 0.18 0.49 -0.13
SecularI -0.39 -0.85 0.07 -0.02
SelfexprI -0.93 0.26 0.05 -0.01
PerformanceG -0.21 -0.16 0.68 0.09
FutureG -0.52 -0.15 0.63 0.13
GenderG -0.44 -0.07 -0.37 -0.03
AssertivenessG -0.12 0.04 -0.02 0.89
InstitutionalCollG -0.22 -0.40 0.50 -0.42
IngroupColG 0.87 0.18 -0.23 0.02
PowerDistG 0.39 0.03 -0.48 0.32
HumaneG 0.10 0.35 0.28 -0.61

NastiStan 0.70 0.12 0.38 -0.15
ReligStan3 0.89 0.03 -0.20 0.00
MoralStan 0.88 0.11 -0.31 -0.05
Complexity -0.26 0.31 -0.10 -0.88
ReligStan4 0.86 0.06 -0.07 0.10
Reward 0.68 0.10 -0.33 -0.20
Cynicism1 0.34 0.77 0.06 0.30
FateControl 0.55 0.42 0.48 0.01
EgalVsConserv -0.24 -0.69 -0.23 0.31
LoyalVsUtil 0.44 0.29 -0.04 0.28
LOCpolitical -0.26 0.06 -0.23 0.52
LOCindividual -0.20 -0.94 0.03 0.29
Regality 0.92 0.14 0.15 0.28
DisciplineFog -0.31 0.03 0.95 0.07
Sociosexuality -0.29 -0.29 -0.49 0.10

G1 G2 G3 G4 HDI
F1 0.73‡ 0.46* 0.15 0.07 -0.70‡
F2 0.35 -0.39 -0.68‡ 0.42* -0.63‡
F3 0.05 -0.08 0.39* -0.13 0.20
F4 -0.56† -0.23 -0.11 0.24 0.12
HDI -0.76‡ -0.45† 0.10 -0.21 1
Table S11: Four factor solution for sample 1 and 2, quartimax rotation.
38
IndividualismH -0.63 0.33 -0.10 0.12
PowerDistH 0.69 -0.31 0.15 -0.07
UncertaintyH -0.03 -0.75 0.00 0.16
MasculinityH 0.15 0.04 0.04 0.38
LongtermH 0.04 0.16 -0.89 0.14
ExclusionismM 0.77 -0.33 0.27 0.18
IndulgenceM -0.54 0.10 0.44 0.03
MonumentalismM 0.12 -0.03 0.93 0.08
EmbeddednessS 0.78 -0.06 0.34 -0.21
HierarchyS 0.72 0.20 -0.05 0.05
MasteryS 0.49 0.37 0.20 -0.07
SecularI -0.36 0.22 -0.84 -0.03
SelfexprI -0.88 0.30 0.28 -0.04
PerformanceG -0.02 0.71 -0.13 0.15
FutureG -0.33 0.74 -0.11 0.17
GenderG -0.52 -0.22 -0.08 -0.08
AssertivenessG -0.19 -0.06 0.03 0.88
InstitutionalCollG -0.05 0.60 -0.37 -0.38
IngroupColG 0.77 -0.48 0.15 0.03
PowerDistG 0.22 -0.60 0.00 0.29
HumaneG 0.22 0.28 0.36 -0.57

NastiStan 0.53 0.13 0.61 -0.10
ReligStan3 0.90 0.08 0.12 0.03
MoralStan 0.93 0.17 0.01 -0.02
Complexity -0.21 0.30 -0.13 -0.90
ReligStan4 0.82 0.10 0.22 0.14
Reward 0.75 0.15 -0.07 -0.18
Cynicism1 0.24 0.78 0.19 0.32
FateControl 0.33 0.41 0.65 0.06
EgalVsConserv -0.11 -0.68 -0.34 0.29
LoyalVsUtil 0.40 0.32 0.11 0.30
LOCpolitical -0.19 0.06 -0.33 0.50
LOCindividual -0.14 -0.95 -0.09 0.28
Regality 0.80 0.18 0.45 0.33
DisciplineFog -0.61 -0.04 0.78 0.09
Sociosexuality -0.09 -0.28 -0.58 0.06

G1 G2 G3 G4 HDI
F1 0.71‡ 0.49* 0.62‡ 0.14 -0.69‡
F2 -0.29 -0.26 0.05 -0.18 0.48‡
F3 0.47* -0.35 -0.35 0.42* -0.62‡
F4 -0.51† -0.25 -0.35 0.20 0.07
HDI -0.77‡ -0.49† -0.43* -0.32 1
Table S12: Four factor solution for sample 1 and 2, varimax rotation.
39
IndividualismH -0.62 -0.03 0.27 0.16
PowerDistH 0.68 0.08 -0.23 -0.09
UncertaintyH 0.01 -0.04 -0.74 0.10
MasculinityH 0.19 0.06 0.14 0.40
LongtermH 0.20 -0.91 0.15 0.11
ExclusionismM 0.77 0.22 -0.18 0.17
IndulgenceM -0.63 0.50 0.05 0.06
MonumentalismM -0.02 0.96 0.06 0.13
EmbeddednessS 0.72 0.27 0.02 -0.22
HierarchyS 0.74 -0.08 0.31 0.06
MasteryS 0.45 0.19 0.44 -0.03
SecularI -0.23 -0.83 0.12 -0.05
SelfexprI -0.96 0.37 0.20 0.00
PerformanceG -0.01 -0.07 0.74 0.21
FutureG -0.33 -0.03 0.74 0.24
GenderG -0.52 -0.06 -0.32 -0.10
AssertivenessG -0.09 0.11 0.09 0.91
InstitutionalCollG -0.05 -0.37 0.51 -0.36
IngroupColG 0.78 0.07 -0.37 -0.01
PowerDistG 0.28 -0.03 -0.52 0.25
HumaneG 0.09 0.34 0.22 -0.56

NastiStan 0.52 0.09 0.53 -0.07
ReligStan3 0.96 0.08 -0.08 0.04
MoralStan 0.99 -0.03 -0.22 -0.03
Complexity -0.17 -0.33 -0.14 -0.94
ReligStan4 0.85 0.06 0.04 0.15
Reward 0.83 -0.05 -0.26 -0.19
Cynicism1 0.01 -0.83 0.04 0.26
FateControl 0.20 -0.26 0.58 0.06
EgalVsConserv 0.03 0.65 -0.24 0.33
LoyalVsUtil 0.32 -0.29 -0.02 0.28
LOCpolitical -0.27 -0.21 -0.32 0.47
LOCindividual 0.04 1.00 0.07 0.36
Regality 0.76 0.01 0.28 0.35
DisciplineFog -0.74 0.12 1.00 0.14
Sociosexuality 0.01 0.16 -0.57 0.05

G1 G2 G3 G4 HDI
F1 0.57† -0.36 0.45* 0.09 -0.66‡
F2 0.47* 0.51† -0.60† 0.42* -0.54‡
F3 -0.18 0.27 0.29 -0.08 0.38†
F4 -0.53† 0.21 -0.21 0.21 0.12
HDI -0.75‡ 0.37* -0.10 -0.26 1
Table S13: Four factor solution for sample 1 and 2, promax rotation.
40
Sample 1 Factor F1 Factor F2 Factor F3 Factor F4 Factor F5
IndividualismH -0.60 -0.32 0.21 0.07 0.21
PowerDistH 0.66 0.37 -0.19 0.00 -0.11
UncertaintyH 0.03 0.19 -0.64 0.21 -0.30
MasculinityH 0.09 0.06 0.01 0.32 0.07
LongtermH 0.19 -0.87 -0.07 0.10 -0.10
ExclusionismM 0.72 0.49 -0.16 0.24 -0.07
IndulgenceM -0.54 0.27 -0.15 -0.04 0.42
MonumentalismM -0.10 0.91 0.20 0.07 0.14
EmbeddednessS 0.70 0.48 0.17 -0.13 -0.07
HierarchyS 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.48
MasteryS 0.46 0.16 0.40 -0.01 0.26
SecularI -0.19 -0.91 0.01 -0.05 -0.09
SelfexprI -0.87 0.00 0.00 -0.18 0.47
PerformanceG -0.11 -0.30 0.57 0.05 0.24
FutureG -0.36 -0.37 0.45 0.06 0.43
GenderG -0.50 -0.11 -0.20 -0.05 -0.19
AssertivenessG -0.29 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.02
InstitutionalCollG 0.11 -0.54 0.37 -0.38 0.31
IngroupColG 0.65 0.45 -0.11 0.11 -0.46
PowerDistG 0.18 0.22 -0.38 0.30 -0.39
HumaneG 0.14 0.32 0.47 -0.55 0.03
Square sum loadings 4.87 4.15 1.85 1.78 1.63
proportion variance 0.23 0.20 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.68
Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3 Factor G4 Factor G5

NastiStan 0.50 0.15 0.34 0.62 0.25
ReligStan3 0.65 0.43 -0.19 0.39 0.29
MoralStan 0.72 0.36 -0.30 0.29 0.21
Complexity 0.12 -0.63 -0.21 0.32 -0.62
ReligStan4 0.79 0.61 0.02 -0.01 -0.02
Reward 0.56 0.19 -0.36 0.33 0.13
Cynicism1 0.62 -0.36 0.14 -0.12 0.58
FateControl 0.67 0.05 0.53 0.08 0.06
EgalVsConserv -0.51 0.60 -0.19 -0.35 -0.17
LoyalVsUtil 0.45 0.09 0.02 -0.08 0.38
LOCpolitical -0.14 0.06 -0.12 -0.61 0.20
LOCindividual -0.76 0.65 0.00 0.01 0.00
Regality 0.70 0.45 0.20 0.17 0.43
DisciplineFog -0.28 -0.20 0.93 0.01 -0.06
Sociosexuality -0.42 0.04 -0.52 -0.10 0.10
proportion variance 0.32 0.15 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.78

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 HDI
F1 0.75‡ 0.17 0.38 0.55† 0.65‡ -0.65‡
F2 0.33 0.65‡ -0.49* 0.14 0.62‡ -0.72‡
F3 -0.10 0.28 0.15 0.09 -0.18 0.23
F4 -0.29 -0.15 0.00 -0.43* 0.03 -0.14
F5 -0.31 0.04 0.01 -0.06 -0.46* 0.29*
HDI -0.70‡ -0.36* -0.01 -0.46† -0.82‡ 1
Table S14: Five factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.
41
IndividualismH -0.68 -0.14 0.20 0.18 -0.11
PowerDistH 0.71 0.19 -0.16 -0.12 0.21
UncertaintyH 0.24 0.03 -0.69 0.19 -0.09
MasculinityH 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.29 0.13
LongtermH 0.01 -0.89 0.07 0.08 0.09
ExclusionismM 0.80 0.31 -0.13 0.11 0.28
IndulgenceM -0.58 0.41 -0.19 0.04 0.13
MonumentalismM 0.08 0.94 0.07 0.07 -0.03
EmbeddednessS 0.73 0.35 0.19 -0.25 0.16
HierarchyS 0.55 -0.05 0.21 -0.02 0.80
MasteryS 0.31 0.18 0.48 -0.08 0.32
SecularI -0.36 -0.86 0.09 0.00 -0.10
SelfexprI -0.97 0.25 -0.05 -0.04 0.01
PerformanceG -0.27 -0.15 0.62 0.09 0.05
FutureG -0.58 -0.15 0.51 0.13 0.14
GenderG -0.37 -0.09 -0.28 0.03 -0.33
AssertivenessG -0.12 0.04 -0.04 0.99 -0.02
InstitutionalCollG -0.24 -0.41 0.51 -0.38 0.23
IngroupColG 0.88 0.21 -0.15 0.00 -0.11
PowerDistG 0.43 0.05 -0.44 0.25 -0.15
HumaneG 0.10 0.36 0.44 -0.55 -0.10
Sample 2 Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5

NastiStan 0.71 0.18 -0.35 -0.13 -0.38
ReligStan3 0.89 0.06 0.21 0.01 -0.16
MoralStan 0.86 0.13 0.33 -0.04 -0.03
Complexity -0.26 0.29 0.10 -0.88 0.01
ReligStan4 0.92 -0.03 0.02 0.06 0.39
Reward 0.65 0.14 0.36 -0.16 -0.11
Cynicism1 0.32 0.82 -0.03 0.32 -0.06
FateControl 0.57 0.38 -0.50 -0.01 0.17
EgalVsConserv -0.20 -0.75 0.19 0.29 0.27
LoyalVsUtil 0.42 0.31 0.05 0.29 0.03
LOCpolitical -0.25 0.02 0.21 0.50 0.30
LOCindividual -0.20 -0.91 -0.02 0.32 -0.15
Regality 0.90 0.17 -0.13 0.29 -0.03
DisciplineFog -0.30 0.04 -0.94 0.07 -0.06
Sociosexuality -0.32 -0.25 0.52 0.13 -0.14

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 HDI
F1 0.71‡ 0.47* -0.13 0.08 -0.13 -0.69‡
F2 0.37 -0.36 0.67‡ 0.43* 0.13 -0.64‡
F3 0.08 -0.13 -0.36 -0.09 -0.02 0.21
F4 -0.62‡ -0.31 0.14 0.25 0.22 0.18
F5 0.51† 0.42* -0.50† -0.22 -0.18 -0.49‡
HDI -0.76‡ -0.46† -0.11 -0.22 0.03 1
Table S15: Five factor solution for sample 1 and 2, quartimax rotation.
42
IndividualismH -0.45 0.48 -0.12 -0.30 0.15
PowerDistH 0.56 -0.45 0.16 0.27 -0.09
UncertaintyH -0.10 -0.73 -0.03 -0.02 0.18
MasculinityH 0.14 -0.02 0.04 0.02 0.31
LongtermH 0.00 0.13 -0.88 0.14 0.08
ExclusionismM 0.66 -0.47 0.27 0.29 0.15
IndulgenceM -0.24 0.06 0.33 -0.62 0.05
MonumentalismM 0.11 -0.05 0.94 -0.06 0.09
EmbeddednessS 0.64 -0.17 0.37 0.40 -0.22
HierarchyS 0.99 0.01 -0.14 -0.01 0.08
MasteryS 0.56 0.30 0.19 0.17 -0.03
SecularI -0.34 0.30 -0.82 0.00 -0.03
SelfexprI -0.54 0.35 0.20 -0.74 -0.05
PerformanceG 0.00 0.68 -0.09 0.04 0.09
FutureG -0.14 0.72 -0.13 -0.26 0.13
GenderG -0.55 -0.10 -0.08 -0.15 -0.01
AssertivenessG -0.18 0.01 0.03 -0.03 0.98
InstitutionalCollG 0.16 0.60 -0.39 -0.07 -0.36
IngroupColG 0.41 -0.54 0.24 0.58 0.00
PowerDistG 0.01 -0.59 0.04 0.23 0.24
HumaneG 0.16 0.31 0.42 0.19 -0.55

NastiStan 0.39 0.24 0.40 0.15 0.66
ReligStan3 0.85 0.14 0.13 0.18 0.29
MoralStan 0.90 0.18 0.10 0.06 0.15
Complexity -0.12 0.13 -0.06 -0.93 0.18
ReligStan4 0.82 -0.04 0.54 0.14 -0.10
Reward 0.74 0.17 -0.04 -0.08 0.19
Cynicism1 0.19 0.87 0.18 0.22 -0.03
FateControl 0.23 0.35 0.74 0.08 0.16
EgalVsConserv -0.03 -0.73 -0.20 0.27 -0.39
LoyalVsUtil 0.35 0.37 0.15 0.27 -0.06
LOCpolitical -0.11 0.04 -0.15 0.29 -0.57
LOCindividual -0.18 -0.82 -0.26 0.47 0.04
Regality 0.67 0.26 0.44 0.45 0.19
DisciplineFog -0.75 0.01 0.56 0.19 0.27
Sociosexuality -0.01 -0.20 -0.63 0.05 -0.18

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 HDI
F1 0.65‡ 0.52† 0.74‡ 0.24 0.60† -0.69‡
F2 -0.42* -0.39 -0.16 -0.15 -0.08 0.57‡
F3 0.55† -0.30 -0.21 0.49* -0.19 -0.63‡
F4 0.57† 0.56† 0.67‡ 0.25 0.49* -0.58‡
F5 -0.52† -0.31 -0.49* 0.03 -0.55† 0.09
HDI -0.77‡ -0.53† -0.53† -0.39* -0.39* 1
Table S16: Five factor solution for sample 1 and 2, varimax rotation.
43
IndividualismH -0.02 0.42 -0.25 -0.26 0.22
PowerDistH 0.07 -0.38 0.19 0.41 -0.14
UncertaintyH -0.10 -0.78 -0.10 0.02 0.03
MasculinityH 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.19 0.34
LongtermH -0.96 0.09 0.29 0.15 0.05
ExclusionismM 0.21 -0.34 0.24 0.51 0.13
IndulgenceM 0.43 -0.06 -0.89 0.13 -0.04
MonumentalismM 1.05 0.06 -0.16 -0.08 0.17
EmbeddednessS 0.32 -0.03 0.39 0.28 -0.17
HierarchyS -0.21 0.07 -0.20 1.19 0
MasteryS 0.21 0.42 0.17 0.41 0.06
SecularI -0.87 0.20 0.16 -0.18 -0.04
SelfexprI 0.32 0.18 -0.97 -0.11 -0.11
PerformanceG 0.00 0.75 0.18 -0.05 0.25
FutureG -0.01 0.71 -0.23 0.05 0.23
GenderG -0.06 -0.19 -0.12 -0.47 -0.04
AssertivenessG 0.16 0.15 0.15 -0.03 1.1
InstitutionalCollG -0.41 0.55 -0.08 0.24 -0.34
IngroupColG 0.15 -0.39 0.70 -0.03 0.04
PowerDistG -0.02 -0.54 0.30 -0.09 0.2
HumaneG 0.43 0.36 0.20 -0.22 -0.45

NastiStan 0.24 0.01 0.18 0.10 0.7
ReligStan3 0.80 -0.04 -0.03 0.11 0.32
MoralStan 0.88 0.04 -0.01 -0.01 0.14
Complexity 0.00 0.12 0.01 -0.95 0.09
ReligStan4 0.88 -0.22 0.59 -0.03 -0.19
Reward 0.73 0.07 -0.15 -0.12 0.19
Cynicism1 -0.06 0.94 -0.01 0.27 -0.07
FateControl 0.12 0.20 0.70 -0.03 0.07
EgalVsConserv 0.15 -0.70 -0.01 0.24 -0.36
LoyalVsUtil 0.24 0.36 0.06 0.26 -0.08
LOCpolitical -0.12 0.22 -0.06 0.33 -0.59
LOCindividual -0.07 -0.87 -0.21 0.48 0.18
Regality 0.54 0.09 0.30 0.37 0.19
DisciplineFog -0.87 -0.05 0.56 0.18 0.27
Sociosexuality 0.05 -0.07 -0.64 0.14 -0.1

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 HDI
F1 0.54† -0.52† -0.40* 0.45* -0.2 -0.54‡
F2 -0.27 -0.39* 0.06 -0.04 0.02 0.48‡
F3 0.34 0.42* 0.62‡ 0.12 0.43* -0.44†
F4 0.35 0.40* 0.73‡ -0.09 0.60† -0.60‡
F5 -0.49* -0.30 -0.44* 0.28 -0.55† 0.13
HDI -0.73‡ -0.42* -0.41* -0.24 -0.34* 1
Table S17: Five factor solution for sample 1 and 2, promax rotation.
44
View publication stats

Clustering of Variables Preprint 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clustering of Variables Preprint 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A test of the reproducibility of the clustering of cultural variables

Preprint · August 2020

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A test of the reproducibility of the clustering of

Keywords: cultural differences, cultural variables, social development, modernization,

1. Individualism vs. collectivism

Results and discussion

Fig. 3. Map of countries on factors F1 and F2.

Table S2. Two factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.

Table S6. Three factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.

Table S10. Four factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.

Table S14. Five factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.

Level of significance, two-tailed:

Walking speed, postal speed, clock accuracy.

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2

Correlation of factors between two samples

Table S2: Two factor solution for sample 1 and 2, unrotated.

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3 Factor G4

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3 Factor G4

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3 Factor G4

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3 Factor G4

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3 Factor G4 Factor G5

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor5

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3 Factor G4 Factor G5

Correlation of factors between two samples

Sample 2 Factor G1 Factor G2 Factor G3 Factor G4 Factor G5

Correlation of factors between two samples

View publication stats

You might also like