Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede's cultural dimensions in a single nation

Highlights

• A scale to measure Hofstede's cultural dimensions at the individual level is tested.

• The scale was then applied to questions testing the homogeneity of the measures.

• Q1 regards the speed to which acculturation occurs within an immigrant population.

• Q2 the degree regional differences within the US constitute distinct cultural values.

• Implications for tourism marketers and a call for future research are discussed.

Abstract

The focus of this study is threefold. First it tested the validity and reliability of a scale designed to measure Hofstede's five cultural dimensions at the individual or psychological level across two large (n > 500) convenience samples of the United States population. Once deemed an appropriate measure, the scale was applied to questions testing the homogeneity of the measures. The questions refer to the speed to which acculturation occurs within an immigrant population and the degree to which purported regional geographic differences constitute distinct cultural values as measured by Hofstede. Implications for tourism marketers as well as a call for future research are discussed.

Introduction

Tourism is a global market and as such requires marketers to face the dilemma of whether it is appropriate to standardize or segment the tourism product and its promotional mix (You, O'Leary, Morrison, & Hong, 2001). Chief among segmentation strategies is one focused on tourists' preferences and behaviors based upon national cultures. The shared value structures often noted within a defined nationality or multinational grouping (Erez & Earley, 1993) are derived from a society's historical “patterned ways of thinking, feeling, and reacting” (Kluckhohn, 1954, p. 86). Though many have argued that shared languages, telecommunications, economic consolidation, tourism, and immigration are influencing the convergence of cultural values (Dann, 1993, Nowak and Kochkova, 2011, Reisinger and Crotts, 2012), the preponderance of the literature supports culture as one of the many forces influencing consumer decision-making (Correia et al., 2011, Figuez et al., 2012, Hsu et al., 2013, Kim and McKercher, 2011, Lam, 2007) and thus is important to those in the business of marketing internationally.

The foundation for much cross-cultural research is the pioneering work of Geert Hofstede, 1980, Hofstede, 2001, De Mooij and Hofstede, 2011. Through a combination of primary and secondary data, Hofstede, 1980, Hofstede, 2001 evaluated 66 nations, creating cultural index scores and ordinal rankings for five constructs. Briefly they are: power distance (a tolerance for class differentials in society); individualism (the degree to which welfare of individualism is valued more than the group); masculinity (achievement orientation, competition and materialism); uncertainty avoidance (intolerance for risk); and later long-term orientation (stability, thrift, respect for tradition, and future oriented) the Confucian dynamic of long-term–short-term orientation) which he contends effectively distinguish people from various nations. Between 1980 and 2014, these works have been cited more than 1900 times in Business Source Primer, which exceeds the combined citations of the alternative theories of Schwartz, 1994, Schwartz, 2006, Inglehart and Baker, 2000, and Steenkamp (2001). The method these recent studies used generally group respondents based on their national citizenship or country of birth. Once grouped, respondents are assigned numeric values based on their citizenship involving one or more of Hofstede's cultural traits, and these quantified cultural values are correlated with various aspects of consumer behavior (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2002). This approach is unlike what is found in typical consumer research where a metric is administered to an individual to measure his or her differences from others. For illustration, Money and Crotts (2003) treated Japanese as collectivists and uncertainty avoiders and Germans in their samples as individualists and risk takers. Such an approach is acceptable when the unit of analysis is a country, and when qualified by the fact that variability does exist within a country (Reisinger & Crotts, 2010). However the approach is inappropriate when the unit of analysis is an individual.

According to Soares, Farhangmehr, and Shoham (2007) review of the literature, defining culture in terms of nationality or place of birth is common in business research in general. Despite the level of sophistication attained in market segmentation theory, tourists' nationality has been the most popular segmentation criterion routinely practiced by destination managers. Clearly, but not always recognized by practitioners, nationality serves as a proxy for cultural values assumed to be homogenous within a nation's members. But is it true? If CV dimensions can be validated on individual levels, we may further investigate the homogeneity versus heterogeneity issue within a nation allowing us to address issues such as the speed of acculturation of immigrants and regional differences.