The second dimension, egalitarianism versus hierarchy, refers to how it is guaranteed that people behave in a responsible manner preserving the social fabric.
Cultural egalitarianism seeks to induce people to recognize one another as moral equals who share basic interests as human beings. People are socialized to internalize a commitment to cooperate and to feel concern for everyone’s welfare. They are expected to act for the benefit of others as a matter of choice. […] Cultural hierarchy relies on hierarchical systems of ascribed roles to insure responsible, productive behavior. It defines the unequal distribution of power, roles, and resources as legitimate. People are socialized to take the hierarchical distribution of roles for granted and to comply with the obligations and rules attached to their roles” (p. 140-141).
The third dimension, harmony versus mastery, relates to how people relate to their environment.
Harmony emphasizes fitting into the world as it is, trying to understand and appreciate rather than to change, direct, or to exploit. […] Mastery […] encourages active self-assertion in order to master, direct, and change the natural and social environment to attain group or personal goals (p. 141).
The three dimensions were replicated in a study in which a different value survey (the Rokeach Value Survey) was used, which added a dimension of “self-fulfilled connectedness”, referring to values that represent profound attachment to others as well as attributes of self-fulfillment (Vauclair et al., 2011). It needs to be noted that there is substantial overlap between Inglehart’s traditional/secular-rational dimension and Schwartz autonomy/embeddedness dimension and between Inglehart’s survival/self-expression dimension and both Schwartz’s autonomy/embeddedness and egalitarianism/hierarchy dimensions (Schwartz, 2006). According to this latter division, seven transnational cultural groupings were identified: West Europe, English-speaking, Latin America, East Europe, South Asia, Confucian influenced, and Africa & Middle East (Schwartz, 2006). Socioeconomic, political, and demographic factors were suggested that give rise to national differences on the cultural value dimensions. The country groupings as perceived by Schwartz are highly – but not fully – similar to those found by Inglehart.
