A test of the validity of Hofstede's cultural framework

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine the reliability and validity of Hofstede's cultural framework when applied at the individual consumer level.

Design/methodology/approach

MBA students and faculty in the behavioral sciences were asked to review Hofstede's cultural instrument and to indicate which dimension (power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity) each particular item was intended to reflect. Subjects were also asked to respond to each item, thus indicating their underlying values. The reliability of each dimension was computed, and the data were factor analyzed to determine whether the various items loaded in a manner that is consistent with Hofstede's framework, thus providing evidence as to discriminant and convergent validity.

Findings

This study presents evidence that Hofstede's cultural instrument lacks sufficient construct validity when applied at an individual level of analysis. Overall, a majority of the items were lacking in face validity, the reliabilities of the four dimensions were low, and the factor analyses did not result in a coherent structure.

Research limitations/implications

It is hoped that these findings will eventually lead to a reliable and valid measure that captures the richness of the various cultural dimensions and can be deployed at the individual and sub‐group levels of analysis. Such a measure would be valuable for market segmentation, and for understanding why consumers from diverse regions and cultures react differently to various marketing tactics.

Originality/value

Given the diversity of the world marketplace, it is essential that marketers have a robust measure of culture so that our understanding of consumer behavior can keep pace with a rapidly changing environment.

Citation

Blodgett, J.G., Bakir, A. and Rose, G.M. (2008), "A test of the validity of Hofstede's cultural framework", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 339-349. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760810902477