Hofstede country index
Hofstede Individualism Index
What the score measures, how to interpret it, and where to explore country results.
Whether social life tends to prioritize group ties or personal autonomy. The index describes broad national tendencies; it does not define individuals.
Compare this dimension
Compare Individualism across countries
Choose two or three country profiles to compare their scores and what the differences may mean.
About this dimension
What does individualism measure?
Whether social life tends to prioritize group ties or personal autonomy.
Country pages
Choose a country to view its index
Each country link opens a profile for this dimension.
Explore all six Hofstede dimensions
Select a dimension to view its country index pages.
Sources and methodology
Sources adapted from the Hofstede and Hall references used in the shared dataset. The communication-context score shown on this site is a transparent proxy calculated as 0.70 × (100 − IDV) + 0.30 × PDI; it is not a score directly measured by Hall.
Hofstede dimensions and country data
- Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
- Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
- Minkov, M. (2007). What Makes Us Different and Similar: A New Interpretation of the World Values Survey and Other Cross-Cultural Data. Klasika i Stil.
- The first four Hofstede dimensions draw on IBM employee studies. Long-term orientation and indulgence draw on later cross-cultural survey research, including the Chinese Value Survey and World Values Survey, as summarized in the sources above.
Hall’s communication-context framework
- Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Anchor Books.
- Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French and Americans. Intercultural Press.
- Kittler, M. G., Rygl, D., & Mackinnon, A. (2011). Beyond Culture or Beyond Control? Reviewing the Use of Hall’s High-/Low-Context Concept. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management.
- Cardon, P. W. (2008). A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model: A Meta-Analysis of Literature on Intercultural Business and Technical Communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication.
- Broeder, P. (2021). Communicating Distances and High- and Low-Context Cultures. Language and Intercultural Communication.
- Lamino, P. P., & Diaz, J. (2025). Intercultural Competencies: Understanding High- vs. Low-Context Cultures. University of Florida IFAS Extension (AEC813).
Limits and critical perspectives
- McSweeney, B. (2015). Hall, Hofstede, Huntington, Trompenaars, GLOBE: Common Foundations, Common Flaws. In Transculturalism and Business in the BRIC States.
- Country scores and the communication-context indicator are broad, national-level summaries. They do not predict an individual’s behaviour and should be interpreted with attention to local, organizational, regional, and personal variation.