The study is devoted to the adaptation and testing in Russian conditions of the internationally recognised toolkit for measuring the values of socio-cultural characteristics according to the Hofstede model at the individual level. The results of approbation on the basis of a sociological study of the Arctic territories of the Republic of Karelia (n=1042) conducted in 2023 were presented. The territorial specificity of the values of socio-cultural characteristics of individuals according to the Hofstede model was determined, as well as their expression in the context of social groups (in particular, gender). The greatest differences can be traced for the indicator "masculinity", and the minimum differences for the indicator "collectivism". The relevance of the model of cultural indicators was checked and the convergence of measurements was assessed. The techniques of factor analysis by principal component analysis (PCA), multidimensional scaling (ALSCAL), and hierarchical cluster analysis were applied. The quality of factor analysis was checked on the basis of Bartlett sphericity criterion values and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistics of the sampling adequacy measure. Also, to check the reliability of the tools used, the results of the authors and the developers of the methodology were compared using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α). The obtained values of the coefficient indicate high reliability of the used toolkit, as well as confirm the preservation of the scales' measuring ability after translation for five indicators out of six. For the sixth indicator, "long-term goal-setting", it is reasonable to adjust the translation of the questions based on the relatively lower Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α). Nomological validity analysis confirmed the relevance of the presented tool. This allows us to speak about the achievement of the research goal and successful adaptation and validation of the actual toolkit for calculating the values of sociocultural characteristics according to Hofstede model at the level of individuals in the conditions of Russia. The applied scales are characterised by high reliability and validity. The prospect of further research is to expand the geography of the toolkit application and to compile an ethnometric database of the regions of AZRF on the values of socio-cultural characteristics according to the Hofstede model measured at the level of individuals, to analyse the patterns of spatial differentiation of indicators, as well as to study the aspects of influence within the triad "space - socio-cultural specifics of individuals - reproduction of human capital”.

Hofstede model, socio-cultural characteristics, socio-cultural specificity, the Arctic zone of Russia, scale verification

1. Auzan A. A., Bakhtigaraeva A. I. et al. Sociocultural factors in economics: Milestones and perspectives. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 2020: 7: 75–91 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2020-7-75-91; EDN: YLTOWI.
2. Auzan A. A., Nikishina E. N. Socio-cultural economics: how culture affects the economy, and how the economy influences culture: a course of lectures. Moscow, Ekon. f-t MGU im. M. V. Lomonosova, 2021: 200 (in Russ.).
3. Bakhtigaraeva A. I., Bryzgalin V. A. et al. Sociocultural specifics of Russia’s regions: common features and differences. Vestnik Moskovskogo un-ta. Ser. 6: Ekonomika, 2021: 5: 29–51 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.38050/01300105202152; EDN: SJQDKA.
4. Bryzgalin V. A., Nikishina Е. N. Is there a regional culture in Russia? Opportunities of using a sociocultural approach in economics. Voprosy ekonomiki, 2020: 7: 108–126 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2020-7-108-126; EDN: VRFWXN.
5. Volkov A. D., Tishkov S. V., Nikitina A. S. Evolution of economic management mechanisms in the Russian Arctic: The present stage. Ars Administrandi, 2022: 14(2): 174–201 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/2218-9173-2022-2-174-201; EDN: ELDOMG.
6. Zhikharevich B. S., Pribyshin T. K. Spatial development strategy of Russia as a result of science and authorities interacting. Region: ekonomika i sotsiologiya, 2021: 4(112): 3–26 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.15372/REG20210401; EDN: ILSOZF.
7. Zangieva I. K., Rotmistrov A. N. Factor analysis of ordinal variables: a comparative study. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskiye i sotsial′nyye peremeny, 2018: 3: 29–46 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2018.3.02; EDN: XSWAPZ.
8. Latova N. V. Cultural specificity of Russians (Ethnometric Analysis Based on the Concept of G. Hofstede). Vestnik instituta sotziologii, 2016: 19: 4: 155–179. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/vis.2016.19.4.433; EDN: XWETNN.
9. Murzina J. S., Pozniakov V. P. et al. Comparative study of the value orientations of small business owners with different durations of companies in the market. Organizatsionnaya psikhologiya, 2021: 11(4): 9–35 (in Russ.). EDN: YPMJND.
10. Poznyakov V. P. The relationship of life and value orientations of entrepreneurs and the characteristics of their economic self-determination. Institut psikhologii RAN. Sotsial′naya i ekonomicheskaya psikhologiya, 2021: 6(21): 150–170 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.38098/ipran.sep.2021.21.1.006; EDN: QFUBBZ.
11. Fomina E. E. Review of methods for assessing the reliability of the measuring scale in sociological research. Ekonomika. Sociologiya. Pravo, 2018: 4 (12): 63–70 (in Russ.). EDN: YWJGMP.
12. 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.
13. Bufetova A. N., Khrzhanovskaya A. A., Kolomak E. A. Cultural heterogeneity and economic development in Russia Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 2020: 13:4: 453–463. DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-0582; EDN: KRJFOQ
14. Chimenson D., Tung R. L. et al. The paradox and change of Russian cultural values. International Business Review, 2022: 31: 3: 101944. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101944.
15. Cho E., Kim S. Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha: Well Known but Poorly Understood. Organizational Research Methods, 2015: 18: 2: 207–230. DOI: 10.1177/1094428114555994.
16. Dorfman P. W., Howell J. P. Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in international comparative management, 1988: 3: 127–150.
17. 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.
18. Fischer R., Poortinga Y. H. Addressing Methodological Challenges in Culture-Comparative Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2018: 49: 5: 691–712. DOI: 10.1177/0022022117738086.
19. 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.
20. Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications, 1980: 328.
21. Hofstede G. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2011: 2: 1. Accessed 12.12.2023. URL: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8
22. Hofstede G. Management Scientists Are Human. Management Science, 1994: 40: 4–13. DOI: 10.1287/MNSC.40.1.4.
23. Hofstede G., Bond M. H. The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 1988: 16: 5‑21. DOI: 10.1016/0090-2616(88)90009-5.
24. Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J., Minkov M. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Revised and expanded. New York, McGraw Hill, 2010: 561.
25. House R. J., Hanges P. J. et al. Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004: 848.
26. Inglehart R., Baker W. E. Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review, 2000: 65 (1): 19–51. DOI: 10.2307/2657288.
27. Klein K. J., Dansereau F., Hall R. J. Level issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 1994: 19: 195–229. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1994.9410210745. 
28. Kucharska W., Bedford D. Knowledge Sharing and Organizational Culture Dimensions: Does Job Satisfaction Matter? Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 2019: 17(1): 1–18. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3406496.
29. Minkov M., Kaasa A. A test of Hofstede's model of culture following his own approach. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 2020: 28(2): 384–406. DOI: 10.1108/CCSM-05-2020-0120.
30. 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.
31. Schwartz S. A Theory of Cultural Value Orientations: Explication and Applications. Comparative sociology, 2006: 5(2-3): 137‑182. DOI: 10.1163/156913306778667357.
32. Sharma P. Measuring personal cultural orientations: scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2010: 38(6): 787‑806. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-009-0184-7.
33. Steenkamp J. E. M. The role of national culture in international marketing research. International Marketing Review, 2001: 18(1): 30‑44. DOI: 10.1108/02651330110381970.
34. 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.
35. 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.