The article presents the results of quality testing and comparison of Hofstede's and Minkov's methods and models for measuring sociocultural characteristics at the individual level. The empirical base of the article is the data of population surveys of four regions of the European part of the Russian Arctic (total n = 3829), conducted with the participation of the authors in 2023-2024. A specific feature of the study is the use of both tools within a single questionnaire and on a single sample. At the analysis stage, the methods of multidimensional scaling (ALSCAL), exploratory factor analysis, hierarchical cluster analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis were used. Data processing was carried out using the SPSS software package, data analysis tools in the Python and R programming languages. The results obtained refute the criticism of the Hofstede model by M. Minkov regarding the "power distance" and "collectivism" indicators at the individual measurement level. While criticism related to the internal inconsistency of the masculinity indicator is more justified. Within the framework of the application of the Hofstede model and the Heydari methodology, six clusters are definitely distinguished, corresponding to six indicators that are appropriate to be distinguished; technically (mathematically) justified is also the distinguishing of 4, as well as 5, 7 and 8 indicators. The presented model and the corresponding Minkov methodology are also not fully consistent - the results of the study indicate a greater focus of the methodology not on 2, but 3 or 6 indicators within the model. Comparison of the values of factor loadings obtained as a result of confirmatory factor analysis indicates a stronger connection between the indicators of socio-cultural characteristics with the resulting factors in the methodology that implements the Hofstede model. Both of the considered methods have shortcomings and features that require further in-depth analysis. The general results of the comparison of the Hofstede and Minkov models of culture indicate, in the opinion of the authors, a somewhat greater research potential of the Hofstede model when applied at the individual level of measurements. The authors believe that in the future it is advisable to conduct a comparative assessment of the nomological validity and explanatory power of the Hofstede and Minkov models in the context of a study of the characteristics and socio-economic practices of the population, as well as aspects of the economic development of the regions of the Russian Federation.

sociology, Hofstede's methodology, Minkov's methodology, socio-cultural characteristics, scale validation, Arctic regions of the Russian Federation

1. Volkov A. D., Averyanov A. O. et al.. Measuring sociocultural characteristics according to the six indicators of the Hofstede model: testing the toolkit for calculating values at the individual level. Vestnik instituta sotziologii. 2024: 1: 43–69 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/vis.2024.15.1.4; EDN: UVPWKI.
2. Latova N. V. Cultural specificity of Russians (Ethnometric Analysis Based on the Concept of G. Hofstede). Vestnik Instituta sotsiologii, 2016: 19: 155–179 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/vis.2016.19.4.433; EDN: XWETNN.
3. Maksimenko A. A., Safronova E. A. et al. Manifestations of Deviant Driving Behavior Among the Russians. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskiye i sotsial′nyye peremeny, 2022: 6: 356–377 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2022.6.2300; EDN: LWSKVE.
4. Bearden W. O., Money R. B., Nevins J. L. Multidimensional versus unidimensional measures in assessing national culture values: The Hofstede VSM 94 example. Journal of Business Research, 2006: 59: 2: 195–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.04.008.
5. Davari D., Nosrati S., Kim S. S. Do cultural and individual values influence sustainable tourism and pro-environmental behavior? Focusing on Chinese millennials. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2024: 41(4): 559–577. DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2024.2309180.
6. DeBode J. D., Haggard D. L., Haggard K. S., Economic freedom and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behaviour, 2020: 23: 65–84. DOI: 10.1108/IJOTB-11-2018-0124.
7. Dhingra D., Srivastava S., Srivastava N. Psychometric Validation of the Scale of Individual Cultural Values (CVSCALE) in Indian Context (Private and Public Leaders in Indian Organizations). Journal of Ecohumanism, 2024: 3(4): 2238–2251. DOI: 10.62754/joe.v3i4.3749.
8. Dorfman P. W., Howell J. P. Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in international comparative management, 1998: 3: 127–150.
9. Engelke D., Pearse N. et al. The Relationship between Culture, Sustainable Use of Resources, and Financial Performance: An Institutional and Natural-Resource-Based Perspective. Economic and Business Review, 2024: 26(2): 61–80. DOI: 10.15458/2335-4216.1335.
10. Erdem T., Swait J., Valenzuela A. Brands as signals: a cross-country validation study. Journal of Marketing, 2006: 70: 1: 34–49. DOI: 10.1097/01.rhu.0000200424.58122.38.
11. Erdoğan O., Sezgin F. et al. How national and school cultural factors influence the link between distributed leadership and collective teacher innovativeness: Testing a multilevel moderated mediation model. European Journal of Education, 2024: e12718. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12718.
12. Evan T., Holy V., Cultural diversity and its impact on governance. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 2023: 89: 101681. DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2023.101681.
13. Ghafoori A., Gupta M. et al. Toward the role of organizational culture in data-driven digital transformation, International Journal of Production Economics, 2024: 271: 109205. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109205.
14. Gustiawan D., Noermijati et al. Workplace incivility to predict employee silence: Mediating and moderating roles of job embeddedness and power distance. Cogent Business & Management, 2023: 10(1): 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2188982.
15. Heydari A., Laroche M. et al. Hofstede's individual-level indulgence dimension: Scale development and validation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2021: 62: 102640. DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102640.
16. Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications, 1980: 328.
17. Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J., Minkov M. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Revised and expanded. New York, McGraw Hill, 2010: 561.
18. Minkov M. A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: old evidence and new data from 56 countries. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 2018: 25: 2: 231–256. DOI: 10.1108/CCSM-03-2017-0033.
19. Minkov M., Bond M. H. et al. A Reconsideration of Hofstede’s Fifth Dimension: New Flexibility Versus Monumentalism Data From 54 Countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 2018: 52: 309–333. DOI: 10.1177/1069397117727488.
20. Minkov M., Dutt P. et al. A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: A new national index from a 56-country study, Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 2017: 24: 3: 386–404. DOI: 10.1108/CCSM-11-2016-0197.
21. Minkov M., Hofstede G. The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 2011: 18: 1: 10–20. DOI: 10.1108/13527601111104269.
22. Minkov M., Hofstede G. A replication of Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension across nationally representative samples from Europe. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2014: 14: 161–171. DOI: 10.1177/1470595814521600.
23. Minkov M., Kaasa A. A Test of the Revised Minkov-Hofstede Model of Culture: Mirror Images of Subjective and Objective Culture across Nations and the 50 US States. Cross-Cultural Research, 2021: 55: 2-3: 230–281. DOI: 10.1177/10693971211014468.
24. Minkov M., Kaasa A. et al. A “Harsh” Culture, Alcoholism, Climate, and Social Hardship Explain National Differences in Suicide Rates. Comparative Sociology, 2022: 21: 1: 43–63. DOI: 10.1163/15691330-bja10049.
25. Minkov M., Kaasa A. 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, 2022: 28: 4: 100971. DOI: 10.1016/j.intman.2022.100971.
26. Minkov M., Sokolov B. et al. A Transposition of the Minkov-Hofstede Model of Culture to the Individual Level of Analysis: Evidence from Mongolia. Cross-Cultural Research, 2023: 57: 264–293. DOI: 10.1177/10693971231153461.
27. Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 2012: 48: 2: 1–36. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
28. Schwartz S. H. Studying values: Personal adventure, future directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2011: 42(2): 307–319. DOI: 10.1177/ 0022022110396925.
29. Schreier C., Udomkit N. et al. Entrepreneurial approaches: A comparative study of Thai and swiss business founders. Asia Pacific Management Review, 2024: 29: 2: 226–240. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2024.05.001.
30. Triandis H. C. Individualism and Collectivism. New York, Routledge, 1995: 259. DOI: 10.4324/9780429499845.
31. Taras V., Steel P., Stackhouse M. A comparative evaluation of seven instruments for measuring values comprising Hofstede’s model of culture. Journal of World Business, 2023: 58(1): 101386. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2022.101386.
32. Yoo B., Donthu N., Lenartowicz T. Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 2011: 23(3-4): 193–210. DOI: 10.1080/08961530.2011.578059.
33. Zhou X., English A. S. et al. COVID-19 cases correlate with greater acceptance coping in flexible cultures: A cross-cultural study in 26 countries. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2024: e12919. DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12919.