The associations of cultural worldviews,political orientation,and trust with COVID-19 risk beliefs in the U.S.

Given that risk beliefs predict engagement in behaviors to prevent disease, it is important to understand the factors associated with risk beliefs. In the present paper, we conducted path analyses to investigate the associations of belief systems (political orientation and cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy) with COVID-19 risk beliefs (i.e., perceived likelihood, perceived severity, and worry about disease; Studies 1 and 2), and the indirect effect through trust in information sources in these relationships (Study 1). Two online panels of U.S. adults were surveyed at three timepoints during the COVID-19 pandemic (Study 1: baseline n = 1,667, 1-year follow-up n = 551; Study 2: n = 404). Results of path analyses indicated that, across studies and timepoints, when controlling for political orientation, trust, and demographic factors, greater individualism had consistent significant direct effects on lower perceived severity and worry about COVID-19, whereas greater hierarchy had consistent significant direct effects on lower perceived severity. However, after accounting for cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy (and trust and demographic factors), none of the associations among political orientation and any of the three COVID-19 risk beliefs were significant. The test of indirect effects indicated that individualism and hierarchy were indirectly associated with lower perceived severity of and worry about COVID-19 through less trust. The findings suggest that cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy play a role in shaping people's risk beliefs.     

THE COMMUNITY VIEW REVISITED

Abstract: Joining a vast Wittgensteinian anti‐theoretical movement, John Canfield has argued that it is possible to read the claims that (1) “language is essentially communal” and (2) “it is conceptually possible that a Crusoe isolated from birth should speak or follow rules” in such a way that they are perfectly compatible, and, indeed, that Wittgenstein held them both at once. The key to doing this is to drain them of any theoretical content or implications that would put each claim at odds with the other. I argue here, first of all, that it is not possible to detheorize both (1) and (2) and still hope to say anything illuminating about the nature of language. In fact, Canfield himself does not succeed in detheorizing both (1) and (2) but ends up trivializing (1) and leaving (2) with quite a bit of theoretical content. I further argue, however, that this is getting the matter the wrong way around. Contra Canfield et al., it is only when we recognize this that we can appreciate how radical and innovative Wittgenstein's claims about language really are.     

Majority world successes and European and American failure to contain COVID‐19: Cultural collectivism and global leadership

United Nations and World Health Organization data show a positive correlation, r = .53, p < .0001, N = 189, between COVID‐19 infection rates and the human development index (HDI). Less wealthy, less educated countries with lower life spans were also more successful in maintaining lower fatality rates, r = .46, p < .0001, N = 189 whereas 9 of the top‐10 countries in the world in per capita fatalities due to COVID‐19 were Western societies high in HDI. Similar positive correlations were found between COVID‐19 infection and fatality rates and a smaller sample of 76 countries measured on Schwartz intellectual autonomy (or individualism), and negative correlations of similar magnitude were found for embeddedness (or collectivism). East Asia was a global leader in preventing the spread of COVID‐19 because of a vigilant public concerned for public safety and compliant with public safety measures. African Union leaders coordinated their responses, and bought into a continent‐wide African Medical Supplies Platform that prevented panicked competition for scare supplies. Western global media and scholars have not paid attention to the successes of East Asia, Africa, and the South Pacific in fighting the pandemic. It is worth asking why this should be the case; understand the weaknesses of extreme individualism in fighting a pandemic requiring coordinated and unified public response, and consider the lessons for global scholars from the pandemic for doing research in the future.     

In Defense of Individualism

This paper offers a programmatic philosophical articulation of moral and political individualism. This individualism consists of two main components: value individualism and rights individualism. The former is the view that, for each individual, the end which is of ultimate value is his own well-being. Each individual's well-being has ultimate agent-relative value and the only ultimate values are these agent-relative values. The latter view is that individuals possess moral jurisdiction over themselves, i.e., rights of self-ownership. These rights (along with other rights individuals may come to possess) constrain the manner in which agents may pursue value. For this reason, the articulated individualism is an constrained individualism. Sketches of arguments are offered for both value and rights individualism. And it is argued that the sole legitimate function of legal/political institutions is to further delineate and protect the rights of individuals. However, the paper is also concerned to indicate why this radical moral and political individualism does not have many of the features or implications that are commonly ascribed to it. In this connection, I seek to show how this social doctrine accords with individuals' having concern for the well-being of others, with the emergence of relationships among individuals that have both instrumental and non-instrumental value, with a degree of responsibility for self and others that is often thought to be antithetical to individualism and, in general, with a flourishing of civil order.     

The functions of music and their relationship to music preference in India and Germany

Is the use of music in everyday life a culturally universal phenomenon? And do the functions served by music contribute to the development of music preferences regardless of the listener's cultural background? The present study explored similarities and dissimilarities in the functions of music listening and their relationship to music preferences in two countries with different cultural backgrounds: India as an example of a collectivistic society and Germany as an example of an individualistic society. Respondents were asked to what degree their favorite music serves several functions in their life. The functions were summarized in seven main groups: background entertainment, prompt for memories, diversion, emotion regulation, self‐regulation, self‐reflection, and social bonding. Results indicate a strong similarity of the functions of people's favorite music for Indian and German listeners. Among the Indians, all of the seven functions were rated as meaningful; among the Germans, this was the case for all functions except emotion regulation. However, a pronounced dissimilarity was found in the predictive power of the functions of music for the strength of music preference, which was much stronger for Germans than for Indians. In India, the functions of music most predictive for music preference were diversion, self‐reflection, and social bonding. In Germany, the most predictive functions were emotion regulation, diversion, self‐reflection, prompt for memories, and social bonding. It is concluded that potential cultural differences hardly apply to the functional use of music in everyday life, but they do so with respect to the impact of the functions on the development of music preference. The present results are consistent with the assumption that members of a collectivistic society tend to set a higher value on their social and societal integration and their connectedness to each other than do members of individualistic societies.     

Individual Differences in Individualism and Collectivism Predict Ratings of Virtual Cities’ Liveability and Environmental Quality

The present research investigated individual differences in individualism and collectivism as predictors of people's reactions to cities. Psychology undergraduate students (N = 148) took virtual guided tours around historical cities. They then evaluated the cities’ liveability and environmental quality and completed measures of individualism and collectivism. Mediation analyses showed that people who scored high in self-responsibility (individualism) rated the cities as more liveable because they perceived them to be richer and better resourced. In contrast, people who scored high in collectivism rated the cities as having a better environmental quality because they perceived them to (1) provide a greater potential for community and social life and (2) allow people to express themselves. These results indicate that people's evaluations of virtual cities are based on the degree to which certain aspects of the cities are perceived to be consistent with individualist and collectivist values.     

Linking Individual Value Orientations to Employee Attitudes: An Exploratory Analysis

This study tested the relationships of individualism, power distance, and mastery orientation to 2 employee attitudes (organizational trust and organizational commitment) that are associated with employees’ psychological benefits within the organization. Results from university employees (N = 706) showed that individualism negatively, whereas mastery positively, related to trust and commitment. Power distance positively related to trust only. The moderating role of mastery was also identified. These findings can help employment or organizational counselors to appreciate value‐related factors that facilitate employees in psychologically integrating into the organization and to explore new ways for employers to foster employees’ positive attitudes.     

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.     

On misunderstanding science

Abstract

The paper examines the differences between Kuhn's account, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, of the sciences as necessarily communal activities with internally set standards of procedure and achievement, and that view of the sciences which calls itself ‘Scientific Realism’ and regards them as striving toward, and perhaps asymptotically approaching, some external and objective reality that bestows truth or falsity on scientific theories.

The main argument turns on Poincaré's demonstration that Newton's Second Law (f = ma) is not a testable, provable proposition with a truth value, but something that is simply adopted. It is adopted in the light of experience, certainly, but there is no logical necessity in the adoption. My suggestion is that it is a ‘way of looking’ and ‘a method of analysis’ and that the necessity of its adoption by any individual lies in its being a necessary condition of entry into the scientific community. That community itself adopts ways of looking or methods of analysis for their fruitfulness in dealing with old problems and defining new ones.

Incoherences in the ‘approach’ account of scientific progress are looked at, and the individualistic assumptions that motivate it. These require the sciences to be presented as the source and basis of agreement and community amongst separated individuals. This picture and its requirement inverts reality as well as Kuhn's account, which makes community and agreement the starting point. The notion of reality as a transcendental convergence point becomes redundant.

The old problem of the incommensurability of paradigms is discussed by relating them to the notions of ways of looking and methods of analysis. These may be incompatible in that one cannot look at things in two different ways at once, but at the same time they cannot be measured on any common scale.     

Is Established Knowledge About Cross-Cultural Differences in Individualism–Collectivism Not Applicable to the Military? A Multi-Method Study of Cross-Cultural Differences in Behavior

Preparing for international military collaboration includes raising knowledge about cultural differences. The differences in individualism–collectivism between countries are among the most central aspects likely to impact collaboration. However, are the differences in individualism–collectivism between countries as documented in a significant amount of civilian research (e.g., Hofstede, 2001a Hofstede, G. (2001a). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]) generalizable to a military context? Or are the differences not the same in a military context, as suggested by Soeters (1997) Soeters, J. L. (1997). Value orientations in military academies: A thirteen country study. Armed Forces and Society, 24, 7–32. 10.1177/0095327X9702400101[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] on the bases of a values survey? Quasi-experiments were conducted in a distributed collaborative computer game environment. The study is multimethod, employing self-reporting, observer ratings and direct behavioral measures, and it is the first study of cross-cultural differences in individualism–collectivism in behavior in a military context. By studying differences in collectivist-type behaviors in a sample of military officers (N = 154) in 4 different countries (the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway), this study seeks to determine whether the cross-cultural differences in values found by Soeters from a military context are reflected in behavior. The study also includes a values survey using Hofstede’s (2007) Hofstede, G. (2007). Values survey module 1994 (VSM-94). Retrieved from www.geerthofstede.com [Google Scholar] measurement tool, the Values Survey Module (VSM), consistent with Soeters’ study. The study is considered exploratory because of a somewhat limited sample. The results from the 6 different measures of collectivist behaviors provide no support for the suggestion that cross-cultural differences in individualism–collectivism are not the same in military organizations as in civilian organizations. Although not conclusive, the results raise doubt concerning the appropriateness of using the VSM in military samples. The implications are discussed.