SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4

Are Hofstede’s Culturel Dimension Scores Being Re-Tested? A Review of Studies Focusing on Turkey

Hofstede’ın Kültürel Boyut Puanları Tekrar Test Ediliyor mu? Türkiye Üzerine Yapılan Çalışmalar Çerçevesinde Bir Değerlendirme

Hamit Murat Özcan
Pages
497–512
Publication Date
2025-12-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that the vast majority of these studies rely on secondary data from Hofstede’s original work, without re-testing the cultural dimensions or addressing possible shifts in Turkey’s cultural context.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Most of national and organizational culture studies have focused on Hofstede’s cultural values, although cultural studies are based on the theories of different researchers in many different disciplines.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, there are debates on the use of Hofstede's framework and the validity of the cultural dimension scores obtained from his studies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that the vast majority of these studies rely on secondary data from Hofstede’s original work, without re-testing the cultural dimensions or addressing possible shifts in Turkey’s cultural context.
🔬Design:Derleme
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Hofstede · ulusal kültür · kültürel boyutlar

Abstract

Most of national and organizational culture studies have focused on Hofstede’s cultural values, although cultural studies are based on the theories of different researchers in many different disciplines. However, there are debates on the use of Hofstede's framework and the validity of the cultural dimension scores obtained from his studies. This study aims to determine whether the dimensions in cultural studies within the framework of Hostede’s cultural dimension are retested and to what extent these studies can explain the probable change in Turkey’s cultural structure, based on the discussion of whether Hofstede’s cultural dimension scores remain valid today. To this end, cultural studies within the Turkish context indexed in the Scopus database were analyzed. The findings reveal that the vast majority of these studies rely on secondary data from Hofstede’s original work, without re-testing the cultural dimensions or addressing possible shifts in Turkey’s cultural context. Furthermore, in studies where the dimensions have been re-tested, the data often diverge both internally and in comparison with Hofstede’s original scores. However, the reasons behind these discrepancies are generally not addressed. Based on these findings, several recommendations are proposed for both academics and practitioners.

Özet

Kültürel çalışmalar, birçok farklı disiplinde farklı araştırmacıların teorileri çerçevesinde yürütülse de ulusal ve örgütsel kültür araştırmalarının çoğu Hofstede’ın kültürel değerlerine odaklanmıştır. Ancak Hofstede’ın çerçevesinin kullanımı ve çalışmalarından elde edilen puanların geçerliliği noktasında soru işaretleri bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada; Hofstede’ın kültürel boyut puanlarının günümüzde geçerliliğini koruyup korumadığı tartışmasından yola çıkılarak, Hofstede’ın kültürel boyutları çerçevesinde yürütülen kültür çalışmalarında boyutların yeniden test edilip edilmediğini ve söz konusu çalışmaların Türkiye’nin kültürel yapısındaki olası değişimi ne derece açıkladıklarını belirlemek amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda Scopus veri tabanında Türkiye örneklemindeki kültür çalışmaları incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular çerçevesinde, yapılan çalışmaların çok büyük bir kısmının Hofstede’ın orijinal çalışmasındaki ikincil verilerle yürütüldüğü, kültürel boyutların tekrar test edilmediği ve Türkiye’nin kültürel yapısındaki olası değişime odaklanmadıkları görülmüştür. Bunun yanında kültürel boyutların tekrar test edildiği çalışmaların verilerinin de hem kendi içlerinde hem de Hofstede’ın verileriyle farklılaştığı, fakat bu farklılaşmanın nedenleri üzerinde durulmadığı bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu sonuçlardan yola çıkılarak akademisyenler ve uygulayıcılar için birtakım öneriler getirilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özcan, H. M. (2025). Are Hofstede’s Culturel Dimension Scores Being Re-Tested? A Review of Studies Focusing on Turkey. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 4, 497–512. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1755539

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (61)

  1. Adler, N. J. (1983). Organizational development in a multicultural environment. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(3), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638301900308
  2. Akıner, I., & Tijhuis, W. (2007). Work goal orientation of construction professionals in Turkey: Comparison of architects and civil engineers. Construction Management and Economics, 25(11), 1165–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190701459581
  3. Arends-Tóth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2009). Cultural differences in family, marital, and gender-role values among immigrants and majority members in the Netherlands. International Journal of Psychology, 44(3), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701700505
  4. Arrindell, W. A. (2003). Book review Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 861–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00193-6
  5. Batır, F., & Gürbüz, S. (2016). Türkiye'nin toplumsal kültür eğilimleri: Globe araştırmasından sonra ne değişti? 24. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, 427-438. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, İstanbul.
  6. Bearden, W. O., Money, R. B., & Nevins, J. L. (2006). A measure of long-term orientation: Development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305282899
  7. Beugelsdijk, S., & Maseland, R. (2011). Culture in economics: History, methodological reflections, and contemporary applications. Cambridge University Press.
  8. Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & Van Hoorn, A. (2015). Are scores on Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture stable over time? A cohort analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5, 223-240. https://doi/epdf/10.1002/gsj.1098
  9. Braithwaite, J., Tran, Y., Ellis, L. A., & Westbrook, J. (2020). Inside the black box of comparative national healthcare performance in 35 OECD countries: Issues of culture, systems performance and sustainability. PLoS ONE, 15(9), e0239776. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239776
  10. Bratoz, S. (2013). Perceptions of metaphors across cultures. ESP Today, 1(1), 45–64. Can, H. & Can, N. (2010). The inner self desires a friendly chat: Chat metaphors in Turkish and English. Metaphor and Symbol, 25(1), 34-55.
  11. Chien, S. Y., Lewis, M., Sycara, K., Liu, J. S., & Kumru, A. (2018). The effect of culture on trust in automation: Reliability and workload. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 8(4), 29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3277900
  12. Chun, D., Zhang, Z., Cohen, E., Florea, L., & Genç, Ö. F. (2021). Long-term orientation and the passage of time: Is it time to revisit Hofstede’s cultural dimensions? International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 21(2), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/14705958211021196
  13. Cutler, B. D., Erdem, S. A., & Javalgi, R. G. (1997). Advertiser's relative reliance on collectivism-individualism appeals. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9(3), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v09n03_04
  14. Çakanlar, A., & Nguyen, T. (2019). The influence of culture on impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-03-2017-2132
  15. Dalcı, İ., & Özyapıcı, H. (2018). Cultural values and students’ intentions of choosing accounting career. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 16(1), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-02-2017-0013
  16. Daller, H., & Yıldız, C. (2006). Power distance at work: The cases of Turkey, successor states of the former Soviet Union and Western Europe. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2006.003
  17. Dirlik, O. (2022). Yönetim çalışmalarında kullanılan ulusal kültür modellerinin karşılaştırılması. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 115–136.
  18. Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R., & Temirbekova, Z. (2007). Transformational leadership: Its relationship to culture value dimensions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 703-724.
  19. Ergün, G. S., & Kitapçı, O. (2018). The impact of cultural dimensions on customer complaint behaviours: An exploratory study in Antalya/Manavgat tourism region. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 12(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-03-2017-0029
  20. Fernandez, D. R., Carlson, D. S., Stepina, L. P., & Nicholson, J. D. (1997). Hofstede’s country classification 25 years later. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595412
  21. Frisby, B. N., Slone, A. R., & Bengu, E. (2017). Rapport, motivation, participation, and perceptions of learning in U.S. and Turkish student classrooms: A replication and cultural comparison. Communication Education, 66(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1259305
  22. Gupta, D. R., Veliyath, R., & George, R. (2018). Influence of national culture on IPO activity. Journal of Business Research, 90, 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.030
  23. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor Press.
  24. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  25. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  26. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  27. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
  28. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  29. Hoppe, M. H. (1993). The effects of national culture on the theory and practice of managing R&D professionals abroad. R&D Management, 23(4), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1993.tb00094.x
  30. Issa, T., Alqahtani, S. G. B., Al-Oqily, I., Baltacı Göktalay, Ş., Köse, U., Issa, T., Salih, B. A., & Almufaraj, W. K. (2021). Use of social networking in the Middle East: Student perspectives in higher education. Heliyon, 7(4), e06689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06689
  31. Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(2), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104272905
  32. Karasözen, B., Bayram, Ö., & Zan, B. U. (2011). WoS ve Scopus veri tabanlarının karşılaştırması. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 25(2), 238–260.
  33. Kartal, A., & Bozok, M. S. (2011). The effects of socio-cultural variables on the application of ethical standards for Turkish accountants. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 6(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10033-011-0001-0
  34. Kasapoğlu, E. (2014). Leadership styles in architectural design offices in Turkey. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(2), 04013045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000804
  35. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of “Culture’s Consequences”: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202
  36. Knight, E., Gunawardena, C. N., & Aydın, C. H. (2009). Cultural interpretations of the visual meaning of icons and images used in North American web design. Educational Media International, 46(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980802571530
  37. Kot, S., Haque, A. U., & Kozlovski, E. (2019). Mediating effect of strategic supply chain management on social and environmental sustainability: Evidence from SMEs of Canada, Iran, and Turkey. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 8(6), 105–117. [DOI bulunmamaktadır]
  38. Leung, K., & Morris, M. W. (2015). Values, schemas, and norms in the culture-behavior nexus: A situated dynamics framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9), 1028–1050. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2015.11
  39. Lewin, A. Y., & Kim, J. (2004). The nation-state and culture as influences on organizational change and innovation. In B. D. Poole & A. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation (pp. 324–353). Oxford University Press.
  40. Lu, J., Chen, Q., & Liu, Y. (2010). FDI and the change of the Chinese culture. International Journal of Social Economics, 37(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291011012902
  41. Malach-Pines, A., & Kaspi-Brauch, O. (2008). The role of culture and gender in the choice of a career in management. Career Development International, 13(4), 306–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810880808
  42. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702551004
  43. Minkov, M., & Kaasa, A. (2022). Do dimensions of culture exist objectively? A validation of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture with World Values Survey items and scores for 102 countries. Journal of International Management, 28(4), 100940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2022.100940
  44. Nacar, R., & Burnaz, Ş. (2011). A cultural content analysis of multinational companies’ web sites. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 14(3), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522751111137427
  45. Odağ, Ö., Hofer, M., Schneider, F. M., & Knop, K. (2016). Testing measurement equivalence of eudaimonic and hedonic entertainment motivations in a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45(2), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2016.1142596
  46. Odağ, Ö., Uluğ, Ö. M., Arslan, H., & Schiefer, D. (2018). Culture and media entertainment: A cross-cultural exploration of hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment motivations. The International Communication Gazette, 80(7), 637–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048517707440
  47. Osland, J., & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in context. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.2909840
  48. Özen, Ş. (2002). Türkiye’deki örgütler/yönetim araştırmalarında törensel görgülcülük sorunu. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 5–31.
  49. Peterka-Benton, D., & Benton, B. (2019). Globalizing online learning: Exploring culture, corporate social responsibility, and domestic violence in an international classroom. E-Learning and Digital Media, 16(4), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753019875940
  50. Raufelder, D., Bakadorova, O., Yalçın, S., İlgün Dibek, M., & Yavuz, H. C. (2017). Motivational relations with peers and teachers among German and Turkish adolescents: A cross-cultural perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.02.003
  51. Sarıtaş, A., & Öztürk, M. C. (2018). Kültürel boyutlar kuramı değerlerinde değişim: Türkiye’nin krizlere verdiği tepkilerin sorgulanması. Selçuk İletişim, 11(1), 125–145.
  52. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Cultural dimensions of values: Towards an understanding of national differences. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 85–119). CA: Sage.
  53. Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113490830
  54. Sims, R. L., & Gegez, A. E. (2004). Attitudes towards business ethics: A five nation comparative study. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000022127.51047.ef
  55. Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework: Avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490971
  56. The Culture Factor. (2025, May 19). https://www.theculturefactor.com/
  57. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1995). The seven cultures of capitalism: Value systems for creating wealth in Britain, the United States, Germany, France, Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands. London: Judy Piatkus Publishers.
  58. Wallerstein, I. (1990). Culture as the ideological battleground of the modern world system. Theory, Culture and Society, 7, 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327690007002014
  59. Wang, Y. (2006). Value changes in an era of social transformations: College-educated Chinese youth. Educational Studies, 32(2), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690600631205
  60. Wu, M. (2006). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions 30 years later: A study of Taiwan and the United States. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15(1), 33–42.
  61. Yaşar, H., & Sağsan, M. (2020). The mediating effect of organizational stress on organizational culture and time management: A comparative study with two universities. SAGE Open, 10(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020924373