Recent studies have shown that the validated dimensions in the best-known models of national culture converge into a two-dimensional default model, yielding a cultural map of the world reminiscent of the geographic one. The revised Minkov-Hofstede model is very similar to that default, whereas Inglehart-Welzel’s model is a rotated and flipped variant of it. However, another popular model - Schwartz’s - differs from the default: it does not have a dimension capturing the cultural contrast between East Asia and Latin America plus Africa. Consequently, it cannot explain national differences in educational achievement and a number of other important national indicators, relevant in international business. This omission in Schwartz’s model is puzzling as its author claims to have analyzed all values with invariant meanings across the world. On the other hand, Schwartz’s model has an idiosyncratic “mastery-harmony” dimension that is not consistent with any geo-economic pattern and has poor predictive properties, constituting another weakness. We show that these idiosyncrasies of Schwartz’s model stem from Schwartz’s controversial decision to ipsatize his items and use multidimensional scaling: a method which, even without ipsatization, can create spatial opposites of items that are not negatively correlated. A principal component analysis of raw (non-ipsatized) Schwartz value domains does yield a variant of the default model of culture. We argue that although ipsatizing Schwartz value measures is not wrong in an absolute sense, it yields an impoverished and somewhat puzzling image of cultural differences across the globe, whereas raw measures reproduce the Minkov-Hofstede variant of the default model relatively well, although a different selection of values might perform even better.

中文翻译：

---

将施瓦茨的文化模型与明可夫-霍夫斯泰德的文化模型结合起来

最近的研究表明，最著名的民族文化模型中经过验证的维度汇聚成二维默认模型，产生了一幅让人想起地理地图的世界文化地图。修改后的 Minkov-Hofstede 模型与默认模型非常相似，而 Inglehart-Welzel 模型是其旋转和翻转的变体。然而，另一种流行的模型——施瓦茨的模型——与默认模型不同：它没有捕捉东亚、拉丁美洲和非洲之间文化对比的维度。因此，它无法解释教育成就的国家差异以及与国际商务相关的许多其他重要国家指标。施瓦茨模型中的这一遗漏令人费解，因为其作者声称已经分析了世界各地具有不变含义的所有价值观。另一方面，施瓦茨的模型有一种特殊的“掌握和谐””与任何地缘经济模式不一致且预测性差的维度是另一个弱点。我们表明，施瓦茨模型的这些特质源于施瓦茨对其项目进行 ipsat 化并使用多维缩放的有争议的决定：即使没有 ipsatization，这种方法也可以创建不负相关的项目的空间对立。原始（非 ipsatized）施瓦茨值域的主成分分析确实产生了默认文化模型的变体。我们认为，虽然同化施瓦茨价值衡量标准在绝对意义上并没有错，但它产生了全球文化差异的贫乏且有些令人费解的形象，而原始衡量标准则相对较好地再现了默认模型的明可夫-霍夫斯泰德变体，尽管与默认模型不同。选择值可能会表现得更好。