Why We Support Research?
At The Culture Factor Group, we believe in unlocking culture with data, not only through our own research but by supporting the advancement of rigorous, evidence-based work across the field. We collaborate with and amplify researchers who refine and challenge existing cultural models, improving the way culture is measured, taught, and applied in real-world contexts.
This publication represents the kind of conceptual clarity and methodological precision we advocate for ensuring that foundational dimensions like Individualism–Collectivism are used with relevance, respect, and rigour.
Why This Research Matters
The concept of Individualism–Collectivism (IDV–COLL) remains one of the most widely used frameworks in cross-cultural research, training, and consulting. Yet misunderstandings and inconsistent use of this dimension have undermined its reliability and impact.
This article is essential reading for cross-cultural scholars, educators, and practitioners who want to apply the concept correctly and effectively. It presents a clear roadmap for navigating recent developments, conceptual updates, and misinterpretations of this foundational cultural dimension.
Purpose of the Research
This article aims to:
- Summarise key developments and refinements in Hofstede’s IDV–COLL model.
- Clarify the distinction between national and individual-level constructs.
- Offer practical guidance for academics, trainers, and consultants working with the concept.
- Address widespread misapplications of IDV–COLL in both research and cultural training.
Findings
The authors highlight five core developments in the IDV–COLL domain:
- Conceptual Narrowing at the National Level
Hofstede’s original concept of collectivism (focused on loyalty to in-groups) is not interchangeable with later definitions that emphasise harmony or relational styles. Narrowing the focus improves measurement reliability. - Reinforcement Through Large-Scale Studies
The GLOBE and Schwartz models have helped refine our understanding but often define collectivism differently. Only some overlap with Hofstede’s version. - Recent Empirical Advances
New research (e.g. Minkov, 2018; Minkov et al., 2020) has led to updated national scores and improved measurement precision.
IDV–COLL remains stable across time and robustly predicts societal outcomes such as legal compliance and innovation adoption. - Disentangling National and Personal Values
Applying national scores to individuals is an ecological fallacy. The authors clarify the danger of assuming cultural values represent individual attitudes, and urge users to avoid misapplication. - Practical Application Framework
The article provides specific advice for:
Educators: Teach culture as a multi-level phenomenon.
Trainers: Focus on functional understanding, not cultural stereotypes.
Researchers: Be a critical user and apply the most updated measures.
Implications
For Researchers
- Encourages accurate, up-to-date usage of IDV–COLL by relying on revised scores and refined definitions.
- Supports comparative research by clarifying model compatibility across different cultural frameworks.
For Educators
- Offers a structured way to teach the IDV–COLL dimension without conflating national values with personal traits.
For Consultants & Trainers
- Reinforces the need to avoid outdated interpretations or blending definitions from unrelated models.
- Provides guidelines to maintain conceptual clarity and cultural sensitivity in training sessions.
Methodology
This is a conceptual and literature-based review, not an empirical study. The authors:
- Review original and updated Hofstede scores.
- Compare countries’ scores on the original Hofstede and the revised Minkov-Hofstede IDV-COLL dimension.
- Identify common misinterpretations and provide usage guidance.
- No primary data was collected or analysed.
Research Limitations/Implications
- This paper synthesises secondary sources; its value depends on the rigour of those original datasets.
- As a conceptual clarification, it does not include new statistical testing but aims to improve the quality of application across disciplines.
What is peer reviewed?
This research has undergone a rigorous peer-review process, ensuring that its methodology, findings, and conclusions meet the highest academic standards. Peer review involves independent evaluation by experts in the field, ensuring objectivity, reliability, and scientific integrity.
- Authors: Adam Komisarof (Keio University, Japan) and Plamen Akaliyski (Lingnan University, Hong Kong SAR, China)
- Journal: Journal of Intercultural Relations
- Publisher: Elsevier
- Publication Date: 2025
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2025.102200