I’ve spent most of the year discussing the demographic differences of the U.S. Latino population, outlining the behavioral diversity within this group. But what really constitutes a U.S. Latino? What are the sufficient and necessary conditions for being a U.S. Latino?
A View at Culture
Culture has long been recognized as important in explaining behavior, and differences in national culture have been suggested to be an important explanation of people’s attitudes across countries. Determining the influence of culture on consumer behavior is not easy, given that culture is a complex and broad construct that is difficult to accurately measure.
In an attempt to better understand the changing demographic landscape of the U.S. Latino population, the Association of Hispanic Advertising Agencies, last year, proposed a new marketing model that defined U.S. Latinos based on a set of cultural dimensions that are said to differ from the non-Latino population.
As discussed at length in the February issue of In Perspective, this model centers on a set of complex, interrelated and changing cultural values: interpersonal orientation, time and space perception, spirituality, and gender perception. In addition, it proposes that language, acculturation, socio-economics and ethnic pride are contextual factors, which no longer define the U.S. Latino population.
The components of this cultural model, which paint a homogenous face on U.S. Latinos, have been borrowed from various studies published over forty years ago. Central to this model is Hofstede’s cultural orientation model.
Hofstede’s Framework
Geert Hofstede conducted perhaps the most comprehensive study of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture. From 1967 to 1973, while working at IBM as a psychologist, Hofstede collected and analyzed data from over 100,000 individuals from forty countries. From those results, and later additions, Hofstede developed a model that identified four primary dimensions to differentiate cultures—power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance. He later added a fifth dimension, long-term outlook, not covered in this issue.
Power Distance Index (PDI) focuses on the degree of equality or inequality between people in a given country. A score that is high in PDI indicates that inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to exist within the society. These societies are more likely to follow a caste system that does not allow significant upward mobility of its citizens, like India (77).
Contrary to popular belief, across Spanish-speaking countries, the PDI scores varied tremendously: Guatemala (95), Panama (95), Mexico (81), Ecuador (78), Venezuela, (73), Colombia (67), Peru (64), Chile (63), Uruguay (61), Argentina (49), Spain (42), and Costa Rica (35). This trend suggests that there is great variation within Spanish-speaking countries.
A low PDI score indicates a society that de-emphasizes the differences between citizen’s power and wealth, in which case, equality and opportunity for everyone is promoted on a national basis. The United States has a PDI score of 40. (See Table 1 for the full list of countries across the five cultural dimensions).
Individualism (IDV) focuses on the degree to which a society reinforces individual or collective achievement and interpersonal relationships. A high ranking in individualism indicates that individuality and individual rights are paramount in that society. Individuals in these societies may tend to form a larger number of looser relationships. The United States has a PDI score of 90, for instance.
A low individualism ranking typifies societies of a more collectivist nature with close ties between individuals. These cultures reinforce extended and collective families, where everyone takes a level of responsibility for fellow members of their group.
Again, across, Spanish-speaking countries, the PDI scores varied considerably: Spain (51), Argentina (46), Uruguay (36), Mexico (30), Chile (23), Peru (16), Costa Rica (15), Colombia (13), Venezuela (12), Panama (11), Ecuador (8) and Guatemala (6).
Masculinity (MAS) focuses on the degree to which a country reinforces the traditional masculine work role, control, and power. A high masculinity ranking reflects a country that experiences a high degree of gender differentiation. In these cultures, males dominate a significant portion of the society and power structure, with females being controlled by males.
Spanish-speaking countries, on the other hand, are again quite diverse: Venezuela (72), Mexico (69), Colombia (64), Ecuador (63), Argentina (56), Panama (44), Peru (42), Spain (42), Uruguay (38), Guatemala (37), Chile (28), and Costa Rica (21).
A low masculinity ranking indicates the country has a low level of differentiation and discrimination between genders. In these cultures, females are treated equally to males in all aspects of the society. The United States yielded a MAS score of 62, and was more or less in the middle relative to the high and low scores among those countries surveyed.
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) focuses on the level of tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity within a given society (i.e. unstructured situations). A high uncertainty avoidance ranking indicates a country’s low tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. This creates a rule-oriented society that institutes laws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce the amount of uncertainty. High Spanish-speaking UAI countries include: Guatemala (101), Uruguay (100), Peru (87), Spain (86), Costa Rica (86), Panama (86), Chile (86), Argentina (86), Mexico (82), Colombia (80), Venezuela (76) and Ecuador (67).
A low uncertainty avoidance ranking indicates the country has less concern about ambiguity and uncertainty and has more tolerance for a variety of opinions. This is reflected in a society that is less rule-oriented, more readily accepts change, and takes more and greater risks. The United States UAI score is 46.
Analysis
In analyzing Table 1, these cultural values show variances across Spanish-speaking countries; the most surprising finding was the range of scores among the Spanish-speaking countries. In some cases, there was a 60-point differential between the top and lowest ranking Spanish-speaking countries, as shown in the Power Distance Index between Guatemala (95) and Costa Rica (35). The U.S. PDI score, incidentally, was 40, a score similar to Argentina (49), Spain (42), and Costa Rica (35).
Among the other measures, there was a 51-point differential between the top and lowest ranking Spanish-speaking countries, as shown in the Masculinity Index between Venezuela (72) and Costa Rica (21). The United States yielded a MAS score of 62, which is relatively similar to key Spanish-speaking countries, including Mexico (69).
Surprisingly, there was a 45-point differential between the top and lowest ranking Spanish-speaking countries, as shown in the Individualism Index between Spain (51) and Guatemala (6). The United States showed an IDV score of 90, which was well above the scores of the Spanish-speaking countries. This finding may suggest that the Spanish-speaking countries (collectively) and the United States may differ significantly along the individualism-collectivism continuum.
Is there a surprise to any of this?
The amount of inter-country diversity goes against everything marketers in the United States have touted about the U.S. Latino segment. After all, we have been painted to be all different from the “Anglo” population (non-Latinos) and similar to one another culturally. Interestingly, the PDI, MAS and UAI scores of the United States do not differ significantly from the scores across some of the Spanish-speaking countries. This also goes against ‘conventional wisdom’ since many of us have been told that U.S. Latinos, in general, are very different culturally from non-Latinos in the U.S.
In recent years, several studies have suggested that cultural differences in many parts of the world (like Europe) may be declining. The effects of globalization and product standardization may be contributing factors. A 2001 study conducted by Paul Gooderham and Odd Nordhaug of the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration explicitly challenged the work of Hofstede, whose analysis of surveys was conducted between 1967 and 1973.
Because the world has changed a great deal since then, Gooderham and Nordhaug argue that Hofstede’s study is flawed. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model, which sampled over 100,000 IBM employees in over forty countries, do not represent the overall general population of these countries.
The biggest problem, I see, in defining the U.S. Latino population based on Hofstede’s work is that the United States hispanic population, today, is not comprised of one cultural group, but instead — many. I also share the concern that the sample that Hofstede’s work does not reflect the diversity of the populations at large today, let alone reflect the diversity of the U.S. Hispanic population.
Application to Hispanic Marketing
The billion-dollar question is whether Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can be effectively applied to the U.S. Latino population, and to what degree can this model serve as a competitive advantage for marketers conducting business inside the U.S.?
At this point in time, there is no research to suggest that these cultural dimensions are valid and that they help define U.S. Latinos. I began with the provocative, and perhaps, a somewhat philosophical question—what are the sufficient and necessary conditions for being a Latino in the United States? This is a critical question to answer. I am not sure that one must yield a specific score on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to be a ‘Latino’ (assuming that the scale is valid and generalizable).
There are a host of other factors like acculturation that affects one’s life. But is acculturation a sufficient and necessary conditions for being a U.S. Latino? (No, not all Latinos in this country are acculturating. Think of third and fourth generation Latinos).
Perhaps, what unifies the U.S. Latino population is the perceived notion of one’s Latino ‘identity’ which resides in their mind, interpreted in their own way, expressed individually and at times, collectively. But what is it that they are expressing? Does it change? If it does, when? Is it present in all Latinos?
Perhaps, it is a sense of self that aligns itself to the Latino culture; at times, that sense of self resides in the non-Latino community. Part of one’s identity may be rooted in one’s personal history in this country, whether it is in the ‘Latino experience’ (first generation) or passed down generationally (second generation or higher).
In trying to define what makes a Latino ‘a Latino,’ we must ask ourselves the question—what are the sufficient and necessary conditions for being a Latino in the United States? There is great diversity within the U.S. Latino population. Can Hofstede’s cultural model help unify or define the U.S. Latino population? What relevance does it have in defining the U.S. Latino population? Moving into the future, what we need are new research questions which will foster new insights.
Hispanic Market Research 
Reblogged this on Hispanic Market Research.