Putting the “We” Into Well‐being: Using Collectivism‐Themed Measures of Well‐Being Attenuates Well‐being's Association With Individualism

Studies repeatedly have documented that societal well‐being is associated with individualism. Most of these studies, however, have conceptualized/measured well‐being as individual life satisfaction—a type of well‐being that originates in Western research traditions. Drawing from the latest research on interdependent happiness and on family well‐being, we posit that people across cultures pursue different types of well‐being, and test whether more collectivism‐themed types of well‐being that originate in Confucian traditions also are associated with individualism. Based on data collected from 2,036 participants across 12 countries, we find support for the association between individual life satisfaction and individualism at the societal level, but show that well‐being's association with individualism is attenuated when some collectivism‐themed measures of well‐being are considered. Our article advances knowledge on the flourishing of societies by suggesting that individualism may not always be strongly linked with societal well‐being. Implications for public policies are signaled.     

Individualist and collectivist norms: when it's ok to go your own way

We conducted two studies to investigate the influence of group norms endorsing individualism and collectivism on the evaluations of group members who display individualist or collectivist behaviour. It was reasoned that, overall, collectivist behaviour benefits the group and would be evaluated more positively than would individualist behaviour. However, it was further predicted that this preference would be attenuated by the specific content of the group norm. Namely, when norms prescribed individualism, we expected that preferences for collectivist behaviour over individualist behaviour would be attenuated, as individualist behaviour would, paradoxically, represent normative behaviour. These predictions were supported across two studies in which we manipulated norms of individualism and collectivism in an organizational role‐play. Furthermore, in Study 2, we found evidence for the role of group identification in moderating the effects of norms. The results are discussed with reference to social identity theory and cross‐cultural work on individualism and collectivism. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Measuring individualism and collectivism: The importance of considering differential components,reference groups,and measurement invariance

A new instrument of individualism and collectivism (I/C) was developed and three key issues in I/C measurement were addressed: differentiating components of I/C, understanding the impact of reference groups, and testing of measurement invariance. Three components of I/C were assessed in China and the U.S.: independence, competitiveness, and uniqueness for individualism; considering of one’s decisions on others, sharing of positive outcomes, and sharing of negative outcomes for collectivism. Collectivism was measured with respect to parents, friends, and general others. Results indicate that Chinese participants are less unique but more independent and competitive than their counterparts in the U.S. The expected cultural difference is found for parent collectivism across all three components and for sharing negative outcome with respect to all three reference groups. These results suggest that individualism is a multidimensional construct, whereas the dimensionality of collectivism appears to be a function of social distance. Measurement invariance was tested at configural, factor loading, and intercept levels for all components of I/C.     

High Power,Low Power,and Equality: Culture Beyond Individualism and Collectivism

Models of culture are operationalized as individualism and collectivism and have not given sufficient attention to other organizing axes—especially how a society handles power, dependence, and equality. Shavitt, Lalwani, Zhang, and Torelli (2006) make a significant contribution by first reminding the field of power distance (Hofstede, 1980) and then moving beyond a single factor to highlight benefits of Triandis’ (1995) horizontal (valuing equality) individualism–collectivism and vertical (emphasizing hierarchy) individualism–collectivism model. But this approach makes it difficult to disentangle the effects of power and individualism or collectivism; priming procedures and experimental variations of power can counter this limitation. Moreover, current horizontal/vertical approaches do not distinguish between having and not having power, although social cognition research documented differential effects of high and low power on content of self‐concept, relationality, and cognition, which suggest previously neglected cultural differences.     

The Values and Lifestyles of Idiocentrics and Allocentrics in an Individualist Culture: A Descriptive Approach

A considerable degree of research in cross‐cultural consumer psychology has focused on the effects of individualism–collectivism on consumer preference for advertising appeals. Recently, psychologists have demonstrated a growing interest in the individual‐level manifestations of individualism–collectivism. Idiocentrism refers to person‐level individualism, whereas allocentrism refers to person‐level collectivism. Drawing on individualism–collectivism theory, in this article we look at the lifestyle of idiocentrics and allocentrics. Our findings suggest a convergence between the etic‐ and emic‐level approaches, thus strengthening individualism–collectivism theory. The emic‐level findings of this study also suggest additional questions to be explored at the etic level. Finally, we make suggestions for applications in consumer communication.     

Individualism–collectivism and organ donation intentions

This article investigates the impact of individualism–collectivism on a person's willingness to donate organs. In Study 1, an online survey showed that individualism–collectivism was significantly and positively associated with participants' willingness to register as organ donors while perceived benefit mediated this relationship. Study 2 demonstrated the causal effect of individualism–collectivism on organ donation intentions using a priming technique. Participants primed with collectivism were more likely to register as organ donors than those primed with individualism. Our findings provide unique insights into whether cultural values (i.e., individualism–collectivism) can predict people's organ donation intentions.     

The impact of individualistic and collectivistic orientation on the judgment of self‐presentation

The aims of this paper are two‐fold: (i) to examine the impact of audience individualism and collectivism orientation on the judgment of strategic self‐presentations and (ii) to test whether audience individualism and collectivism orientation would affect the importance of likeability and competence in determining social outcomes. In two studies, participants evaluated modest and boastful presentations in an achievement context. It was found that the more collectivistic the audience was, the more likely the modest presenter was to be rated as likable, competent, and deserving of a desirable social outcome. In contrast, the more individualistic the audience was, the more likely the boastful presenter was to be rated as likeable, competent, and deserving of a desirable social outcome. The importance of likeability and competence in predicting the final social outcome was moderated by audience individualism and collectivism orientation. Likeability was more important in deciding the social outcome for those who were more collectivistic than for those who were less so (Study 1). Competence was more important in determining the social outcome for those who were more individualistic (Study 2). These studies build a potential theoretical bridge between social influence and social perception/social judgment literature. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Generalized and specific components of prejudice: The decomposition of intergroup context effects

Although different types of prejudice tend to be highly correlated, target‐specific and more generalized components can nevertheless be distinguished. Here, we analyze whether indicators of the intergroup context—threat, contact, and neighborhood composition—predict the target‐specific and/or generalized components of prejudice. Using data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (N = 4629), we build a multilevel model that captures the relationship between social dominance orientation, general levels of neighborhood heterogeneity, symbolic and realistic threat and cross‐group friendship (averaged across target groups), and generalized prejudice. Our model simultaneously estimates the relationship between target‐specific levels of these intergroup context indicators and target‐specific prejudice. Results indicated that social dominance orientation remained the strongest predictor of generalized prejudice when adjusting for other variables and that indicators of the intergroup context primarily explain differences between target group ratings. Aggregate levels of cross‐group friendship also had a small effect on generalized prejudice.     

Inter‐ and intra‐cultural variations in self‐other boundary: A qualitative‐quantitative approach

Past research on the theories of self‐construal and individualism‐collectivism in cross‐cultural contexts presents inconsistent and inconclusive results. Some researchers have seriously questioned the validity of major instruments measuring self‐construal across cultural groups. To address the validity issue, this study developed quantitative measures from ethnographic data. In five scenarios mapping self to close‐other boundaries, 171 Anglo‐Canadians and 224 Mainland Chinese were asked to make a decision and offer a reason for the decision. Two intriguing findings emerged from the data. (1) In comparison with Anglo‐Canadians, Mainland Chinese were more likely to share material belongings with close‐others and less likely to share their thoughts/opinions. The first part of this finding provides unequivocal support for the theories of self‐construal and individualism‐collectivism, whereas the latter part challenges an important assumption of these theories, which contends that collectivists should be more likely than individualists to share everything they own (including opinions) with close‐others. This unconventional finding proposes the division of material belongings and thoughts/opinions sharing of the self‐other boundary in future cross‐cultural self‐construal research. (2) There were significant differences in the reasons Canadians and Chinese offered for what they would or would not do in a specific situation. For example, the reasons for not telling the truth about a roommate's nonmatching outfit were “tastes differ from person to person” for a Canadian and “I don't tell others what I think of them” for a Chinese. The Canadians clearly show respect for the other's personal preference and the Chinese were thinking “what can I benefit from telling her the truth?” It was reasoned that underneath the giving and generous Chinese lies a shrewd mind, and underneath the frank Canadian lies a materialistic mind. In conclusion, this article contributes to the field in that it reports pioneering research, via both qualitative and quantitative means, on sharing material belongings and opinions/thoughts in samples from individualistic and collectivistic cultures. The findings of this study illustrate, specify, and challenge the universal utility of the theories of self‐construal and individualism‐collectivism.     

Assessing alternative models of individualism and collectivism: a confirmatory factor analysis

Six alternative structural models of individualism–collectivism are reviewed and empirically compared in a confirmatory factor analysis of questionnaire data from an Australian student sample (N = 340). Central to the debate about the structure of this broad social attitude are the issues of (1) polarity (are individualism and collectivism bipolar opposites, or orthogonal factors?) and (2) dimensionality (are individualism and collectivism themselves higher‐order constructs subsuming several more specific factors and, if so, what are they?). The data from this Australian sample support a model that represents individualism and collectivism as a higher‐order bipolar factor hierarchically subsuming several bipolar reference‐group‐specific individualisms and collectivisms. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Galton and the birth of differential psychology and eugenics: Social,political, and economic forces

The social, political, and economic forces operative in nineteenth century Britain are briefly described. This permits tracing the birth of both the scientific study of individual differences and the field of eugenics to the infrastructure of society at that time. The distinction is made between the normative doctrine of individualism and the factual study of individual differences. It is argued that democratic—liberal—capitalistic—individualism, in part, conditioned the beginning of differential psychology and eugenics. In this process, Galton's liberal views concerning individual freedom and opportunity for full development became transformed into their dialectic—totalitarian—collectivism—a vision of an ideal state which did not come into being. It is paradoxically concluded that those same social forces which helped bring about the birth of differential psychology and the entailing eugenics ideology prevented the latter from being accepted and implemented.     

Culture,essentialism, and agency: are individuals universally believed to be more real entities than groups?

Are human individuals universally seen to be more real entities (or more entitative, to use Campbell's, 1958, term) than social groups? Although the individual may be seen to be more entitative than social groups in the West, it is unclear whether this is the case in other cultures, especially in East Asia. Two aspects of perceived entitativity are distinguished: psychological essentialism (belief in the presence of essence‐like unchangeable properties) and agency (perception that a social entity is an agent), and examined for four social targets (individual, family, friendship group, and society) in three English‐speaking cultures (Australia, UK, and USA), three East Asian cultures (Hong Kong, Japan, and Korea), and two continental European cultures (Belgium and Germany). In all cultures, the individual person was seen to possess essence‐like unchangeable characteristics more than social groups (i.e. essentialized). As for agency, the individual person was seen to be more agentic than groups in Western cultures, but both individuals and groups were conferred an equal level of agency in East Asia. Individuals may be universally more essentialized than friendship groups and societies, but not always seen to be more agentic, than social groups. Implications of the results for conceptions of individualism and collectivism are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Normativeness and individualism

Five experiments were conducted with a twofold aim: firstly, examine the normativeness of some important features of Western individualism, and secondly, determine what aspect of social value serves as the anchor for their potential normativeness. Five key constituents of individualism were studied. A questionnaire composed of five sub‐questionnaires was used, each one referring to an ‘individualistic’ constituent and to its opposing ‘collectivistic’ referent. Two main paradigms in the judgment‐norm approach were implemented, one implying self‐presentation strategies and the other implying social judgments. Together, the results revealed that only three constituents of individualism can be considered normative—self‐sufficiency, individual anchoring, and internality—and that one of the constituents—the primacy of individual goals—is not normative at all, and may be even counter‐normative. The results pointed out an individualistic pattern that is much less homogeneous than often assumed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Culture-specific approach to the study of individualism/collectivism

Studies in individualism/collectivism (Triandis, McCusker & Hui, 1990) have revealed a considerable cultural connotation of the phenomena. The aim of our investigation was to develop a cross-culturally equivalent psychometric instrument for measuring individualistic versus collectivistic orientation on the basis of the shared representation of individualism/collectivism among Bulgarians. By applying the psychosemantic methodology we extracted seven concepts which form the individualism/collectivism dimension. The proposed instrument, labelled Bulgarian individualism/collectivism (BIC) scale, consists of a preference choice between the two words in every possible pair of the seven words. Validation studies included investigation of the relationship between the BIC scale and value orientation, between the BIC scale and general views of society and political preferences, and between the BIC scale and behavioural intentions such as the intention to start a business of one's own, the intention to emigrate, and the choice of professional vocation. Results were compared with the relationship of these variables to other measures of individualism/collectivism (scales of Triandis and Brown). The results suggest that the BIC scale reveals a more global orientation, whereas the other scales are concerned with specific everyday behaviours. A comparison between Bulgarian and American samples revealed some specificity in the Bulgarian social representation of individualism/collectivism, which can be explained by the extremely collectivistic norms of the former communist society in Bulgaria.     

Responsibility and Justice: A View Across Cultures

A psychological theory needs both universal and specific components in order to describe and predict human behaviour across cultures. It is argued that the purpose of conducting cross-cultural studies is not merely to demonstrate cultural variations in human behaviour, but also to build better universal laws so that we can generalize from culture to culture. From this cross-cultural point of view, the six papers of this special issue are discussed. The distinction between individualism and collectivism, as an example, is evaluated in relation to a specific case—Japanese culture—and a few observations are made, including the suggestion that variances associated with within-culture sources are often larger than between-culture variances. Finally, the implications of cross-cultural studies in a rapidly changing world are discussed.     

Reflections on the Meaning and Structure of the Horizontal/Vertical Distinction

The commentaries by Aaker (2006), Meyers‐Levy (2006), and Oyserman (2006) extend the implications of the horizontal/vertical distinction described in our article (Shavitt, Lalwani, Zhang, & Torelli, 2006) in a number of interesting directions. We join these authors in calling for further research on horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism constructs. We also highlight conceptual and structural issues that remain to be resolved and evaluate priming and other operational approaches to the study of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism.     

Individualism,collectivism, and Chinese adolescents' aggression: intracultural variations

This study examined the relations between cultural values (i.e., individualism and collectivism) and aggression among 460 (234 girls) Chinese adolescents. Conflict level and social status insecurity were examined as potential explaining mechanisms for these relations. The results showed that adolescents' endorsement of collectivism was negatively related to their use of overt and relational aggression as reported by teachers and peers, whereas positive associations were found between the endorsement of individualism and adolescent aggression. Adolescents' conflict level and social status insecurity accounted for a significant part of these associations. Findings of this study demonstrate the importance of examining intracultural variations of cultural values in relation to adolescent aggression as well as the process variables in explaining the relations. Aggr. Behav. 36:187–194, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Individualism and sociocultural adaptation: Discrimination and social capital as moderators among rural‐to‐urban migrants in China

This study examined the associations of sociocultural adaptation with individualism and collectivism and the moderating roles of discrimination and social capital in the associations among rural‐to‐urban migrants (N = 641) in Beijing, China. Results indicated that individualism was associated with poorer adaptation for migrants reporting low perceived discrimination or low social capital. However, migrants reporting high perceived discrimination showed poorer adaptation, regardless of individualism; and migrants reporting high social capital showed better adaptation, regardless of individualism. Collectivism was not related to adaptation. Findings suggest that individualism may be detrimental to migrants’ adjustment to a collectivistic society.     

On the Relationship between Social Capital and Individualism–Collectivism

Both social capital and individualism–collectivism (IC) have been, and still are, popular and well‐researched constructs in social sciences. Many theorists have argued that individualism poses a threat to social cohesion and communal association. Other researchers believe that growth of individuality, autonomy, and self‐sufficiency are necessary conditions for the development of social solidarity and cooperation. The present article reviews the studies on the relationship between social capital and IC, using different data and different measures. We conclude that countries with higher level of social capital (where people believe that most people can be trusted) are also more individualistic, emphasizing the importance of independence, personal accomplishments, and freedom to choose one’s own goals. In societies where trust is limited to the nuclear family or kinship alone, people have lower levels of social capital. Social capital increases as the radius of trust widens to encompass a larger number of people and social networks, bridging the ‘gap’ between the family and state.     

The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching: A multinational investigation

We investigated the role of three beliefs in predicting teachers’ motivating style toward students—namely, how effective, how normative, and how easy-to-implement autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching were each believed to be. We further examined national collectivism–individualism as a predictor of individual teachers’ motivating style and beliefs about motivating style, as we expected that a collectivistic perspective would tend teachers toward the controlling style and toward positive beliefs about that style. Participants were 815 full-time PreK-12 public school teachers from eight different nations that varied in collectivism–individualism. All three teacher beliefs explained independent and substantial variance in teachers’ self-described motivating styles. Believed effectiveness was a particularly strong predictor of self-described motivating style. Collectivism–individualism predicted which teachers were most likely to self-describe a controlling motivating style, and a mediation analysis showed that teachers in collectivistic nations self-described a controlling style because they believed it to be culturally normative classroom practice. These findings enhance the literature on the antecedents of teachers’ motivating styles by showing that teacher beliefs strongly predict motivating style, and that culture informs one of these beliefs—namely, normalcy.