Verified by 
On February 12, 2020, the world of cross-cultural research lost a pioneer. Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist, passed away at age 91, leaving behind a legacy of work for generations to come. He is most well-known for describing cultural dimensions along which countries differed, thereby highlighting the importance of considering the context within which social scientists operate. According to him, culture is how our minds are collectively programmed, allowing us to distinguish the members of one group from others.
Hofstede’s contribution to cultural and cross-cultural psychology remains unparalleled, with growing significance in today’s globalized world. Indeed, culture has far-reaching consequences on behaviors, values, and cognition, without which any academic story may stay incomplete.
As psychological researchers, we often collect data through online forms, circulated widely over the internet. This implies that participants from all across the world can access our study and often do; we usually receive responses from users across 30 countries or more.
A simple website tool that has helped us integrate culture (in some way) in our analyses is available at Hofstede Insights. This allows anyone to compare two or more countries on the six dimensions from Hofstede’s theory. Let’s compare India and the United States as an illustration.
Indians expect inequality and rigid, top-down power structures; for example, obedience is taught to children, leaders may be paternalistic, and in an organizational context, employees may be given directives that they are expected to fulfill, no questions asked.
In comparison, in the U.S., children may be thought of as equal to their parents, subordinates may be consulted instead of directed, and power is distributed more equally. However, it is also likely that followers endorse equality as much as leaders. Hofstede named this dimension power distance, which represents the directionality of inequality.
Cultures also differ in terms of how tolerant they are toward ambiguity and uncertainty in the face of unstructured situations. Both India and the U.S. are similar in this dimension, in the sense that both cultures are somewhat accepting of imperfection, which drives innovation but is accepting of failure.
The degree to which cultures differ in terms of their assertiveness versus modesty (termed masculinity vs. femininity) also differentiates them. People may be motivated by competition or by their quality of life and caring for others. Americans and Indians lean more towards the competitive side.
Specifically, in the U.S., behaviors are motivated by striving to be the best, and these behaviors are rewarded and displayed. Similarly, in India, wealth and success are ostensibly on display, qualified only by spiritual and religious teachings of humility.
The fourth dimension on which cultures may differ is what was once termed Confucian Work Dynamism, which refers to how cultures deal with the future while trying to maintain links to their collective pasts. There is no dominant preference for this among Indians, where because of religious and philosophical reasons, time is thought to be subjective. On the other hand, the U.S. is low on this dimension, implying that Americans value traditions and view them as hallowed. For instance, they have very firm views about what’s “good” and “bad,” especially concerning issues such as weapons and the use of drugs.
Certain cultures are more restrained than others. For instance, Indians are more skeptical, do not prioritize leisure or instant gratification. On the other hand, countries like the U.S. are more indulgent, in the sense that Americans are more likely to have lenient norms about behaviors requiring control, such as the use of drugs.
The extent to which members in a society are interdependent on others is perhaps the most well-known facet of what defines a culture. Societies like the U.S. are highly individualistic, where everyone is focused on themselves instead of the group, where privacy is a right, and where tasks are prioritized instead of relationships.
On the other hand, countries like India are intermediate, with traits of both individualism and collectivism. Thus, the Indian culture underscores belonging to a group and emphasizes that its members behave in accordance with norms that might benefit the group. Loyalty to the group is thus stressed in exchange for protection. The individualistic part of Indian culture stems from the religious ideas about karma—each individual is responsible for their own actions and their consequences.
Hofstede’s model, while not focusing on differences at an individual level, certainly points to nuances within social differences, which have been instrumental in comparing dimensions between WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) societies versus non-WEIRD ones. This translates into a gradual paradigm shift in research designs within psychology, which are usually dominated by observations of WEIRD samples, but more often than not, are generalized to other cultures.
In honoring Hofstede’s work, we can only hope that more social science research aims to be inclusive and acknowledges the social and cultural differences between various societies.
This post was written by Arathy Puthillam, Hansika Kapoor, and Sampada Karandikar—psychology researchers at Monk Prayogshala.
