Measuring Cultural Dimensions: External Validity and Internal Consistency of Hofstede’s

VSM 2013 Scales

The text discusses the work of Geert Hofstede, a prominent figure in the study of culture, and
his development of the Cultural Dimensions Theory. This theory defines culture as the
collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one human group from another. It
focuses on cultural values, such as views on equality and justice, which influence human
conduct and thought.

Hofstede's theory has had a significant impact on cross-cultural research, and it introduced
the idea of reducing cultural values to a few meaningful dimensions. The text highlights two
of the most influential dimensions: individualism and power distance. It also mentions
Hofstede's development of a survey instrument called the Values Survey Module (VSM) to
measure cultural values.

However, there are limitations to Hofstede's work, including the narrow sample he used from
a single company (IBM) and oversimplification of cultural diversity. Despite these
limitations, Hofstede's theory has been widely cited and used in research.

The text also raises concerns about the reliability and validity of the VSM, particularly in its
later versions (e.g., VSM 2013). It mentions debates over the internal consistency of the
scales used to measure cultural dimensions and discusses how revisions to the VSM might
have affected its psychometric properties.

The primary research question posed is whether the VSM 2013, the latest version of the
instrument, has improved (country-level) internal consistency to provide reliable measures of
cultural dimensions.

The text discusses replication attempts of Geert Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory,
focusing on the use of his Values Survey Module (VSM) 2013 in cross-cultural research. It
mentions that previous replications of Hofstede's cultural dimensions have shown relatively
close matches to the country variation originally observed by Hofstede in 1980. However, the
match has eroded to some extent over time, which could be attributed to changing national
cultures or measurement instruments.

The study presented aims to conduct a large-scale replication using the VSM 2013 to assess
its internal consistency and external validity across 57 countries. It outlines four possible
outcomes of the analysis, ranging from the VSM 2013 scores being internally consistent and
closely correlating with Hofstede's official country-scores to the scores being inconsistent and
poorly correlating with both Hofstede's initial findings and more recent country-scores.

The text provides information about the sample used in the study, including sample size and
demographics. It also describes the measures of cultural dimensions used from the VSM 2013
and mentions the availability of country scores from Hofstede's Insights and meta-analytic
sources.

Overall, the text highlights the importance of assessing the reliability and validity of the VSM
2013 in cross-cultural research and addresses potential theoretical and methodological
concerns related to cultural values and measurement instruments.
The text discusses the findings of a study that aimed to assess the internal consistency and
validity of Geert Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory, particularly focusing on the latest
version of his survey instrument, the Values Survey Module (VSM) 2013. The study
analyzed data from 57 countries, testing dimensions such as individualism, power distance,
and indulgence.

The key findings of the study are as follows:

1. Poor Internal Consistency: The study found that the VSM 2013 scales exhibited poor
internal consistency, indicating that they did not reliably measure well-defined cultural
constructs. This consistency issue was observed in earlier versions of the VSM as well.

2. Inadequate Validity: The VSM 2013 scores did not correlate well with previously
published country scores on cultural dimensions, including those obtained from Hofstede's
seminal 1980 study. This lack of correlation raised concerns about the validity of the VSM
2013.

3. Methodological Concerns: The study highlights methodological concerns in Cultural

Dimensions Theory, suggesting that combining vaguely related items into a single construct
can lead to imprecise measurements and affect the theoretical framework.

4. Content Differences: The VSM 2013 items differed significantly from the original set of
items used by Hofstede in his 1980 study, potentially contributing to the poor performance of
the instrument.

5. Implications: The study suggests that alternative measures should be considered for
assessing cultural dimensions, especially in the case of individualism and power distance. It
also underscores the need for caution when using Hofstede's broad generalizations about
cultural values.

6. Limitations: The study acknowledges limitations related to the sample, potential

publication bias in previous research, and the generalizability of findings to different
subcultures within countries.

7. Conclusion: The text concludes that while Cultural Dimensions Theory has been widely
applied in fields like international business, the empirical evidence presented in this study
questions the reliability and validity of the theory. It suggests that new approaches may be
needed to study cultural differences in the modern world.

In summary, the study raises significant doubts about the effectiveness and relevance of the
VSM 2013 and highlights the need for more robust measures of culture in cross-cultural
research.