Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism

Do differences in individualism and collectivism influence values, self-concept content, relational assumptions, and cognitive style? On the one hand, the cross-national literature provides an impressively consistent picture of the predicted systematic differences; on the other hand, the nature of the evidence is inconclusive. Cross-national evidence is insufficient to argue for a causal process, and comparative data cannot specify if effects are due to both individualism and collectivism, only individualism, only collectivism, or other factors (including other aspects of culture). To address these issues, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of the individualism and collectivism priming literature, with follow-up moderator analyses. Effect sizes were moderate for relationality and cognition, small for self-concept and values, robust across priming methods and dependent variables, and consistent in direction and size with cross-national effects. Results lend support to a situated model of culture in which cross-national differences are not static but dynamically consistent due to the chronic and moment-to-moment salience of individualism and collectivism. Examination of the unique effects of individualism and collectivism versus other cultural factors (e.g., honor, power) awaits the availability of research that primes these factors.     

Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism

In psychological research on cultural differences, the distinction between individualism and collectivism has received the lion's share of attention as a fundamental dimension of cultural variation. In recent years, however, these constructs have been criticized as being ill-defined and "a catchall" to represent all forms of cultural differences. The authors argue that there is a conceptual confusion about the meaning of ingroups that constitute the target of collectivism. Collectives are rarely referred to in existing measures to assess collectivism. Instead, networks of interpersonal relationships dominate the operational definition of "ingroups" in these measures. Results from a content analysis of existing scales support this observation. To clarify and expand the individualism-collectivism distinction, a theoretical framework is proposed that draws on M. B. Brewer and G. Gardner's (1996) conceptualization of individual, relational, and collective selves and their manifestation in self-representations, beliefs, and values. Analyses of data from past studies provide preliminary support for this conceptual model. The authors propose that this new theoretical framework will contribute conceptual clarity to interpretation of past research on individualism and collectivism and guide future research on these important constructs.     

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.     

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.     

Dimensions of Acculturation and Work Hope in International Students

Work hope is an emerging and important factor in the career development process of international students. In this study, the authors focused on the work hope of international students and examined its relation to dimensions of acculturation (i.e., dominant society immersion, ethnic identity, ethnic society immersion, individualism, and collectivism). A total of 340 international students completed an online survey. Results of a correlation analysis revealed associations in the expected directions. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that horizontal collectivism, horizontal individualism, and vertical collectivism had a significant and unique contribution in explaining work hope. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.     

个人主义与集体主义结构的验证性研究

本文用实证方法通过对中国大陆303名被试的调查,对个人主义、集体主义的维度及其测量问卷的构想效度进行初步验证,结果支持Triandis提出的个人主义、集体主义可以分成水平、垂直两个维度,在个人水平上,个人主义与集体主义有四种类型的构想。验证性因素分析表明,Singelis的问卷有较好的构想效度,但在中国被试的测试结果上表现出一些题目的不适合,有待于进一步修正。     

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 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.     

Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism-collectivism: a comparison of African Americans and European Americans

The current study examined ethnic differences in horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism among 96 African American and 149 European American college students. Participants completed the 32-item Singelis et al. (1995) Individualism/Collectivism Scale. Multivariate analyses of variance results yielded a main effect for ethnicity, with African Americans being significantly higher on horizontal individualism and European Americans being higher on horizontal collectivism and vertical individualism. A moderated multiple regression analysis indicated that ethnicity significantly moderated the relationship between individualism and collectivism. Individualism and collectivism were significantly and positively associated among African Americans, but not associated among European Americans. In addition, collectivism was related to grade point average for African Americans but not for European Americans. Contrary to the prevailing view of individualism-collectivism being unipolar, orthogonal dimensions, results provide support for individualism-collectivism to be considered as unipolar, related dimensions for African Americans.     

Social values priorities and orientation towards individualism and collectivism of Greek university students

The study aimed to explore the value priorities of Greek young adults and their orientation towards individualism and collectivism and to investigate for possible relationships between value types and individualism and collectivism. Greek undergraduate students (n = 484) completed the Social Values Survey, the Auckland’s Individualism and Collectivism Scale and a form of demographic information. Benevolence, self-direction and hedonism were found to be the most highly rated value types for both males and females. In the case of individualism and collectivism participants scored higher on collectivism. Males and science and technology students scored higher on value types regarding openness to change and self-enhancement. Females and social and humanities students scored higher on conservation and self-transcendence value types. Religiosity was associated to collectivism and to value types regarding conservation and self-transcendence. Regression analysis revealed a direct association between individualism and openness to change and self-enhancement. Collectivism was found to be associated with conservation and self-transcendence.     

Dimensionality of individualism–collectivism and measurement equivalence of Triandis and Gelfand’s scale

Despite researchers’ strong interest in individualism and collectivism (I–C), the conceptualization and measurement of I–C constructs remain controversial. Through a cross-cultural study, the present research examines the dimensionality of I–C and tests equivalence of a measurement scale recently developed by Triandis and Gelfand. Through confirmatory factor analyses, the authors find that conceiving I–C as separate constructs with multiple dimensions is superior and better fits the data. The measurement scale developed based on such a conceptualization is found warrantable although refinements can be made. The results suggest a need for future research on further testing the dimensionality and measurement of the individualism and collectivism scale.     

The relationship between shame and guilt: cultural comparisons between Ireland and the United Arab Emirates

The current study examines whether proneness to shame and guilt is related to the cultural dimensions of collectivism and individualism. Two groups of participants from Ireland (n?=?120) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (n?=?115) completed measures assessing collectivism, individualism, and shame and guilt proneness. Results indicated that both samples displayed similar levels of individualism and collectivism. The UAE sample reported significantly higher levels of guilt proneness and shame proneness characterised by negative self-evaluation. In contrast, the Irish sample displayed significantly higher levels of shame characterised by withdrawal tendencies. Guilt was positively correlated with individualism, but shame was not correlated with either scores on collectivism or individualism. Young Arab women appear to experience higher levels of guilt and shame characterised by negative self-evaluation in comparison to their Irish counterparts who displayed higher levels of guilt proneness.     

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.     

个体主义/集体主义的影响因素:生态视角

个体主义/集体主义是衡量文化的重要维度。两者的价值取向有所区别,前者关注自我的独特性,而后者关注自我与他人的关系。近年来研究者发现了众多影响个体主义/集体主义的新因素并构建了理论。这些理论中有4个理论非常具有代表性:现代化理论、气候-经济理论、传染病理论以及大米理论。其中后3个理论从远因的角度来对个体主义/集体主义的成因进行了探讨,为研究者探究个体主义/集体主义成因提供了新思路。未来个体主义/集体主义影响因素的研究可以用多种测量方法综合的方式或者从基因的角度来进行探索。     

Relation of Individualism–Collectivism and Ethnic Identity to Spiritual Transcendence Among European Americans,Asian Indian Americans,and Chinese Americans

The hypothesis that spirituality is influenced by individualism–collectivism and ethnic identity is investigated among European Americans (EAs), Asian Indian Americans (AIAs), and Chinese Americans (CAs) who completed measures of individualism–collectivism, ethnic identity, personality, and spiritual transcendence (ST). Data analyses indicated that EAs scored higher than both AIAs and CAs on the ST. Separate regression analyses on ST with demographics and personality as covariates and individualism–collectivism and ethnic identity as independent variables indicated that collectivism significantly predicted ST for EAs and AIAs, and resolution of ethnic identity significantly predicted ST for Chinese Americans.     

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.     

Religiosity, values, and horizontal and vertical individualism-collectivism: a study of Turkey, the United States, and the Philippines

The authors examined the links between two dimensions that have been useful in understanding cross-cultural differences and similarities, namely, individualism-collectivism (I-C) and value orientations. The authors examined the relations and parallels between the two variables by directly relating them and examining the patterns of relations that both have with a third variable, religiosity. Participants were 475 college students from the Philippines, the United States, and Turkey who responded to measures of horizontal and vertical I-C, value orientations, and religiosity. The authors found partial support for the parallels between I-C and value types, particularly for collectivism and conservative values. Moreover, religiosity was associated positively with conservative values and collectivism, across all three cultures. The authors found individualism to also relate to openness-to-change values, though the patterns were not as consistent as those that they found between collectivism and conservation. Differences and similarities emerged in links of I-C-values to religiosity across the three samples.     

Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures--a critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: comment on Oyserman et al. (2002)

Analyzing national and ethnic differences in individualism and collectivism, D. Oyserman, H. M. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeier (2002) showed that small differences in scales or samples produce markedly divergent results, challenging the validity of these constructs. The author examines the following limitations of research on individualism and collectivism: It treats nations as cultures and culture as a continuous quantitative variable; conflates all kinds of social relations and distinct types of autonomy; ignores contextual specificity in norms and values; measures culture as the personal preferences and behavior reports of individuals; rarely establishes the external validity of the measures used; assumes cultural invariance in the meaning of self-reports and anchoring and interpretation of scales; and reduces culture to explicit, abstract verbal knowledge.     

Bringing culture to basic psychological theory--beyond individualism and collectivism: comment on Oyserman et al. (2002)

D. Oyserman, H. M. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeir (2002) offered a comprehensive literature review on individualism and collectivism that forwards valuable suggestions for ways to enhance future research conducted within this framework. The author argues that although their criticisms of much contemporary social psychological research on individualism and collectivism are valid, even more fundamental problems need to be recognized as characterizing work within this tradition, such as the insufficiently subtle nature of the views held of culture, the limited attention given to meanings, and the downplaying of contextual variation. The author suggests adopting more nuanced and process-oriented conceptions of culture and more contextually grounded views of its impact on psychological functioning as a way of realizing the promise of cultural psychology to broaden and provide insight into basic psychological theory.     

Individualism and Collectivism

Psychologists have long portrayed the mind “as a machine or computer that is the same in all times and places, while only the raw materials processed by the machinery or the data in the computer vary” (Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998, p. 918). This state of affairs changed dramatically over the last decade and a rapidly growing body of experimental research documents profound cultural differences in basic psychological processes. To date, much of this work has addressed the influence of individualism or collectivism, often framed in terms of independent vs. interdependent self‐construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; for a comprehensive review, see Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Other dimensions of culture, which figured prominently in Hofstede's (1980) groundbreaking analysis, received less attention. In this issue's Research Dialogue, Shavitt, Lalwani, Zhang, and Torelli (2006) draw attention to one of these dimensions, namely the distinction between horizontal and vertical cultural orientations, which value equality or emphasize hierarchy, respectively. They review the importance of this distinction for understanding personal values, advertising and consumer persuasion, self‐presentational patterns, and gender differences, noting that the influence of horizontal/vertical orientations is often obscured by their conflation with differences in individualism and collectivism. Commentaries by Aaker (2006), Meyers‐Levy (2006), and Oyserman (2006) elaborate on their analysis and suggest additional avenues for future research. In combination, this set of papers makes a compelling case for extending the analysis of cultural differences in cognition, emotion, motivation, and behavior beyond the individualism/collectivism distinction that has captured the lion's share of recent attention.