Similar to the value domains types at individual level, Schwartz also derives seven distinct value types when analyzing the values at a culture-level. The seven values types, which can be summarized in three value dimensions derived from this analysis are briefly discussed below.。

   Conservatism (later called embeddedness) is a value type that emphasizes the maintenance of traditional values or the traditional order. The value type is opposed to two distinct autonomy value types, which are located at the opposite side of the “value circle” that is produced by Schwarz’s method of analysis. The two autonomy types both promote individual benefit, rather than group benefit. Intellectual autonomy as a value types emphasizes on the perusal of intellectual ideas and directions, whereas the affective autonomy value type places greater emphasis on the pleasurable experiences.

    Schwarz’s hierarchy value type emphasizes a harmonious relationship with the environment, whereas this value type is opposed by mastery, which emphasizes an active mastery of the (social) environment.

    Another value dimension can be found with a future two opposing value types: hierarchy versus egalitarianism. The hierarchy value type emphasizes an unequal distribution of power, whereas the egalitarian value type gives greater emphasis on equality and the promotion of the welfare of others. (Schwartz, 2002)

 It is important to note, that Schwartz’ work represents a radical departure from the previously presented studies, in as far as the measurement instrument is radically different (values vs. preferred states or behavior) .This may have two consequences. It does eliminate, at least potentially, the chance of situational variables having a strong impact on the respondents. On the other hand, it does open the argument that when asked about values (rather than specific outcomes) respondents may be inclined to choose a more utopian answer, which in turn may not be reflected in their actual behavior. Schwartz’ extensive work associates to evaluate values in more global and varied economic and social contexts that has resulted in his Personal-Level and Culture-Level Values Scales.

Hall’s High –and Low-context Orientation   

Still another very important tool for examining cultural differences is the approach described by the anthropologist Edward Hall. He distinguishes among cultures on the basis of the role of context in communication. In the previous Chapter, we mentioned that any communication takes place within some physical, social, and cultural context. Although Hall categorizes cultures as being either high-context or low-context, context is a cultural dimension that ranges from high to low. Fig. 2-6 places various cultures along that dimension.

Fig. 2-6 Contrasting High-context or Low-context

(Source: Robert Kreitner and Angelo Kinicki, Organizational Behavior 5^th ed., Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2001, p.111) 

In high-context cultures most of the information is in the physical context or is internalized in the people who are a part of the interaction. Very little information is actually coded in the verbal message. In low-context cultures, such as German and American, however, most of the information is contained in the verbal message, and very little is embedded in the context or within the participants. In high-context cultures such as those of Japan, Korea, and China, people tend to be more aware of their surroundings and their environment and do not rely on verbal communication as their main information source. The context of the message is well understood by both sender

and receiver.。