3.3: Five Fundamental Value Orientations

Value Orientation Theory

While Hofstede’s dimensions offer a powerful framework for comparing national cultures through broad value patterns, they represent just one lens through which cultural differences can be understood. To deepen our perspective, let’s take a look at Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Value Orientation Theory - a model that explores how cultures respond to universal human questions about time, activity, and relationships. This approach shifts focus from national traits to shared existential concerns, offering another valuable tool for analyzing intercultural communication.

The Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck Value Orientations theory represents one of the earliest efforts to develop a cross-cultural theory of values. According to Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), every culture faces the same basic survival needs and must answer the same universal questions. It is out of this need that cultural values arise. The basic questions faced by people everywhere fall into five categories and reflect concerns about: 1) human nature, 2) the relationship between human beings and the natural world, 3) time, 4) human activity, and 5) social relations. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck hypothesized three possible responses or orientations to each of the concerns. Below is a table that summarizes the three responses for each concern:

Table 3.1.1: Summary of Kluckhohn-Strodbeck Values Orientation Theory

What is the inherent nature of human beings?

According to Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), this is a question that all societies ask, and there are generally three different responses. The people in some societies are inclined to believe that people are inherently evil and that the society must exercise strong measures to keep the evil impulses of people in check. On the other hand, other societies are more likely to see human beings as basically good and possessing an inherent tendency towards goodness. Between these two poles are societies that see human beings as possessing the potential to be either good or evil depending upon the influences that surround them. Societies also differ on whether human nature is immutable (unchangeable) or mutable (changeable).

What is the relationship between human beings and the natural world?

Some societies believe nature is a powerful force in the face of which human beings are essentially helpless. We could describe this as “nature over humans.” Other societies are more likely to believe that through intelligence and the application of technology, humans can control nature. In other words, they embrace a “humans over nature” position. Between these two extremes are the societies who believe humans are wise to strive to live in “harmony with nature” (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961).

What is the best way to think about time?

Some societies are rooted in the past, believing that people should learn from history and strive to preserve the traditions of the past. Other societies place more value on the here and now, believing people should live fully in the present. Then there are societies that place the greatest value on the future, believing people should always delay immediate satisfactions while they plan and work hard to make a better future (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961).

What is the proper mode of human activity?

In some societies, “being” is the most valued orientation. Striving for great things is not necessary or important. In other societies, “becoming” is what is most valued. Life is regarded as a process of continual unfolding. Our purpose on earth, the people might say, is to become fully human. Finally, there are societies that are primarily oriented to “doing.” In such societies, people are likely to think of the inactive life as a wasted life. People are more likely to express the view that we are here to work hard and that human worth is measured by the sum of accomplishments (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961).

As Hill (2002) has observed, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck did not consider the theory to be complete. In fact, they originally proposed a sixth value orientation—Space: here, there, or far away, which they could not quite figure out how to investigate at the time. Today, the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck framework is just one among many attempts to study universal human values.

Critique of Cultural Values Analysis

While cultural distinctions can be helpful in describing general traditions and behavioral tendencies, they become problematic when rigidly applied to individuals. Today, personal identity is more fluid and multifaceted than ever before, shaped by a wide range of influences including ethnicity, social networks, migration, media exposure, and global experiences. For example, a second-generation Nigerian-American living in New York may draw equally from Yoruba cultural traditions, American mainstream media, and digital communities that span continents. This complexity challenges simplistic cultural classifications.

Figure 3.1.2: Representatives of the Yi Minority in China

Today, political borders no longer clearly define who people are. For example, Ukrainians living in other countries, Palestinians, and Uyghurs often feel a strong cultural connection that goes beyond the country they live in—and sometimes even conflicts with official government views. More and more, people are forming identities that stretch across countries. Immigration, remote work, and social media apps like TikTok and Instagram make it easy to connect with different cultures and new ideas every day..

Contemporary scholars in intercultural communication, like Holliday (2010), caution against using cultural categories too rigidly. They argue that these categories can lead to stereotypes - making it seem like a person’s behavior is completely shaped by their culture, with no room for individuality. This way of thinking is called essentialism, which means assuming that people have fixed traits based on where they’re from.

For example, if someone is from Mexico - a country often described as having high power distance - an essentialist view might assume that person will always follow authority and never question a boss. But that’s not always true. People can adapt, change, and behave differently depending on the situation.

A related idea is reductionism, which means oversimplifying people by reducing their identity to a few cultural traits. This can lead to assumptions based on ethnicity or nationality, ignoring the fact that individuals have unique personalities and experiences. Just because a culture is labeled “feminine-oriented” doesn’t mean everyone in it avoids ambition or success. Likewise, people in cultures labeled as “risk-avidant” may still take bold risks. For instance, Japan scores high in uncertainty avoidance, suggesting a preference for structure and predictability. Yet, Japanese youth embrace startup culture, launching tech ventures and fashion brands that challenge traditional norms. Notably, Uniqlo’s global expansion involved bold market strategies and innovation - hardly risk-adverse behavior.

In reality, every culture includes a mix of values. You probably know people who act more individualistic and others who are more collectivist, even within the same community.

Holliday and other scholars (Holliday, 1999; Piller, 2017) also point out that many cultural categories were developed from a Western point of view. This can lead to biased judgements - for example, seeing individualism as positive and power distance as negative. These labels often reflect Western values, not universal truths.

Instead of relying on stereotypes, Holliday encourages us to take a de-centered perspective - to let cultures define themselves and to focus on individuals, not just cultural labels. Thai means being aware of our own assumptions and trying to “bracket” them - setting them aside - so we can understand others as complex individuals shaped by many influences.

Contributors and Attributions

Intercultural Communication for the Community College, by Karen Krumrey-Fulks. Provided by LibreTexts. License: CC-BY-NC-SA

Language and Culture in Context: A Primer on Intercultural Communication, by Robert Godwin-Jones. Provided by LibreTexts. License: CC-BY-NC

Adapted from: Exploring Intercultural Communication, by Tom Grothe. Provided by LibreTexts. License: CC-BY