Transcript Document

The Resurrection of Individualism
The miracle of Standardization
“Individualism and Idiocentricism:
Relating Cultures to their People”
Ulrich Schimmack, Shigehiro Oishi, Ed Diener
Draft
History of Cross-Cultural Psychology
• 1970
- start of JCCP
- Triandis’s book “Subjective Culture”
• 1980
- Handbook of CCP (edited by Triandis)
- Hofstede’s book “Culture’s Consequences”
• 1990
- Psychological Review articles by Triandis
and by Markus and Kitayama
Individualism-Collectivism
“One of the most useful and actively
researched constructs to emerge from cultural
social psychology has been the dimension of
individualism—collectivism” (Vandello &
Cohen, 1999).
“Perhaps the most important distinction
cross-cultural researchers make is between
individualistic and collectivistic cultures”
(Burger, Personality Textbook).
Then Oyserman and colleagues published a 70page (!) review of research on Individualism in
Psychological Bulletin
Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier (2002).
Rethinking individualism and collectivism:
Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and
meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
The authors examined three lines of research:
- cross-cultural comparisons of nation means
- within cultural correlations with measures of
IND and COL
- effects of priming of IND and COL
Conclusion:
“At this time, it is impossible to tell the extent
to which different cultural research methods
… produce the same effects.”
Oyserman et al.’s Other Conclusions
Cultural differences in Individualism and
Collectivism “were neither as large nor as
systematic as often perceived. “
“What Hofstede actually measured as
individualism—collectivism does not bear
much resemblance to what he and other
cultural psychologists generally have taken
individualism, and especially collectivism, to
mean.”
Oyserman et al.’s Omission
• The main meta-analysis compared mean
differences in measures of IND and COL
between the United State and other nations.
• For about 50 nations it was possible to
compute effect sizes.
• The authors do not correlated these effect sizes
with conventional measures of individualism
(Hofstede’s factor scores)
• The correlations for 31 nations are .23 and -.25
(n.s.).
Conclusion
• Different measures of individualism fail to
show convergent national differences.
• Lack of convergent validity undermines the
value of Individualism as a useful construct for
cross-cultural research.
A requiem for Individualism
Four (cross-)cultural psychologists wrote
commentaries to Oyserman’s article and
Oyserman et al. wrote a replied
(another 45 precious prime journal pages)
Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic
psychological processes--Toward a system
view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 89-96.
“So far, researchers both in and out of the field
of measurement of cultural values appear to
be quite naive in believing what attitudinal
survey items indicate at their face value.”
Translation: Scales do not show large
differences between Japan and the USA, but I
know that they are very different.
Bond, M. H. (2002). Reclaiming the individual
from Hofstede's ecological analysis--A 20-year
odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 73-77.
“The field will in fact abandon these two
overfreighted constructs [Individualism &
Collectivism] altogether and move toward
narrower theories of culture based on more
specific constructs.”
Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using individualism and
collectivism to compare cultures--A critique of
the validity and measurement of the
constructs. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78-88.
“We need another way to study culture”
Miller, J. G. (2002). Bringing culture to basic
psychological theory--Beyond individualism
and collectivism: Comment on Oyserman et al.
(2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 97-109.
“Whereas the Oyserman et al. (2002) review
argued that current limitations in cultural
work may be addressed through
methodological improvements of work
conducted within the individualism—
collectivism paradigm, I argue for the need to
go beyond such a framework.”
Individualism: 1980-2002
The Miracle
• Impressive Reliability and Temporal Stability
• Spector and colleagues (inc. Phanikiran
Radhakrishnan) administered Hofstede’s
survey in 23 nations; 16 nations had been
included in Hofstede’s seminal study in the
1970s.
• Nation means on IND correlated .80!
Cross-Cultural Measurement
• Hofstede used ipsative scores in his crossnational comparisons. [i.e., data are
standardized within individuals to eliminate
response styles]
• Oyserman et al.’s review was based on
unadjusted responses to IND and COL
measures.
• Hypothesis: The different scoring methods
may explain the lack of convergent validity.
Method
• To test the hypothesis, I relied on two large
cross-cultural student surveys conducted by
Ed Diener and colleagues in 1996 and 2002.
• 1996: 40 nations
IND-COL Measure: Individualismcollectivism scale (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk,
& Gelfand, 1995)
• 2002: 48 nations
IND-COL Measure: single-item measures
Conventional Individualism
• Hofstede’s factor scores (48 nations)
• Spector’s replication study (24 nations)
• Triandis’s expert ratings (xx nations)
• Schwartz value survey (xx nations)
- (Affective Autonomy, Intellectual Autonomy,
reversed Conservatism)
Table 1
Convergent validity of previous individualism measures
Hofstede
Spector
Triandis
Schwartz
Hofstede
.86
.92
.92
Spector
.80 (16)
.81
.79
Triandis
.90 (42)
.77 (20)
.44
Schwartz
.56 (23)
.81 (15)
.51 (31)
Note. Below diagonal = Pairwise deletion of missing nations;
above diagonal = listwise deletion of missing nations (N = 10).
Nation Level Correlations of the ICS –
Subscales
- Horizontal Individualism
“I do my own thing.”
- Vertical Individualism
“Winning is everything.”
- Horizontal Collectivism”
“I like working in teams.”
- Vertical Collectivism
“I subordinate my own goals to my parents’
wishes.”
Table 2
Correlations between ICS scales (country level, N = 40)
H-IND
V-IND
H-COL
V-COL
H-IND
V-IND
H-COL
V-COL
.09
-.56*
-.46**
-.15
-.76**
-.47**
.39*
.12
.24
.43**
.32*
.80**
-
Note. Below diagonal = standardized; above diagonal =
unstandardized.
• Standardization influences the correlations
among ICS scales.
• The next analysis examines how
standardization influences the correlations
with conventional individualism
Table 3
Correlations between IND-COL scales and Individualism (N =
40)
Raw (r)
H-IND
V-IND
H-COL
V-COL
* p < .05, ** p < .01
.18
-.72**
-.30
-.36*
Standardized (r)
.64**
-.23
-.14
-.10
Next we correlated the ICS scales with
Oyserman et al.’s effect sizes
IND – Individualism effect sizes
COL – Collectivism effect sizes
IND-COL Difference Score (controls for
response styles)
Table 4
Correlations of Oyserman’s IND and COL scores with other
measures of individualism
Conventional
IND
(N = 38)
H-IND
V-IND
H-COL
V-COL
(N = 38)
H-IND-S
V-IND-S
H-COL-S
V-COL-S
* p < .05, ** p < .01
IND
COL
.23 (47)
-.20 (50)
INDCOL
.40** (47)
Unstandardized
.91**
-.23
.29
.35
.28
-.57**
.20
.28
.45**
.20
.85**
.83**
Standardized
-.61**
-.60**
.72**
.53**
.22
-.36*
-.63**
-.60**
.81**
.17
-.57**
-.32
Conclusion
• Unstandardized ICS scores show convergent
validity with Oyserman et al.’s effect sizes
based on comparisons of unstandardized
measures.
• Standardized Horizontal Individualism
shows convergent validity with Conventional
Measures of Individualism.
• Standardization produces convergent
validity.
Construction Validiation
• Are standardized or unstandardized scores
valid indicators of individualism?
Individualism and Wealth
• Previous research showed that wealthier
nations are more individualistic.
• I used recent data on Purchasing Power
Parity as a measure of wealth.
Table 5
Correlations of individualism measures with wealth
Measure
Pairwise
Listwise (N =
35)
Conventional
IND
S-H-IND
H-IND
Meta-IND
Meta-COL
Meta-IND-COL
.83** (74)
.76**
.70** (37)
.12 (37)
.18 (45)
-.21 (48)
.38* (45)
.69**
.11
.20
-.32
.48**
Conclusion
Conventional measures of individualism and
recent ipsative measures correlate with wealth.
Measures based on unstandardized IND and
COL ratings do not correlate with wealth.
Related Measures
• Human Rights Index
• Corruption
• Quality of Life (Infrastructure, Health Care)
• These measures show the same pattern,
which is partly due to the fact that they are
also highly correlated with wealth.
Subjective Well-Being (Life-Satisfaction)
• In many nations subjective well-being has
been assessed in representative surveys.
• Diener, Diener, and Diener (1995)
demonstrated that individualistic nations are
happier.
• Surveys of different samples (student,
general population) and at different times
(1970s, 1980s, 1990s) show convergent
validity.
Table 10
Correlation of individualism measures with SWB
Measure
Pairwise
Listwise (N =
38)
Conventional
IND
S-H-IND
H-IND
Meta-IND
Meta-COL
Meta-IND-COL
.50** (80)
.55**
.49** (40)
.36* (40)
.19 (47)
-.22 (50)
.31* (47)
.45**
.36*
.34*
-.14
.40*
People in individualistic cultures tend to rely
more on their emotional experiences when
they judge life-satisfaction.
Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis (1998)
Schimmack, Radhakrishnan, Oishi, Dzokoto,
& Ahadi (2002).
We created a composite measure of the
correlation between hedonic balance and life
satisfaction from three multinational studies
(inc. Diener’s 1996, 2002 student surveys).
Table 12
Correlation of individualism measures with use of affect in lifesatisfaction judgments
Measure
Pairwise
Listwise (N =
37)
Conventional
IND
S-H-IND
H-IND
Meta-IND
Meta-COL
Meta-IND-COL
.48** (65)
.48**
.54** (39)
-.12 (39)
-.11 (44)
-.35* (46)
.25 (44)
.54**
-.14
-.05
-.35*
.30
Conformity
R. Bond and Smith (1996) conducted a metaanalysis of experimental conformity studies.
They found a negative correlation between
conformity and individualism.
We used Bond and Smith’s meta-analysis to
reexamine the relation between conformity and
different measures of conformity.
Table 13
Correlations of individualism measures with conformity
Pairwise
Conventional
IND
S-H-IND
H-IND
Meta-IND
Meta-COL
Meta-IND-COL
Listwise (N = 6)
-.67* (12)
-.89*
-.70 (7)
-.55 (7)
-.58 (8)
.21 (8)
-.39 (8)
-.58
-.50
-.93*
.77
-.93*
Next we examined whether the results for the
ICS scales in the 1996 sample would replicate
in the 2002 sample.
The 2002 sample included only 4 items and
only 1 item for horizontal individualism.
“I am a unique individual.”
Table 14
Correlations with the horizontal individualism item “I am a
unique individual”
Unstandardized
Conventional
IND
S-H-IND
Wealth
Rights
Corruption
Quality of Life
SWB
Use of Affect
Conformity
.27 (42)
.21 (27)
.37** (48)
-.36* (33)
.36* (43)
.36* (42)
.56** (48)
.24 (48)
-.03 (11)
Standardized
.53** (42)
.40* (27)
.53** (48)
-.64** (33)
.57** (43)
.65** (42)
.59** (48)
.34* (48)
-.12 (11)
Conclusion
In general, even a single item – standardized
across only 4 items – shows convergent
validity with conventional individualism and
the expected correlations with validation
criteria.
General Conclusion
Individualism
Fiske
Bond
Miller
•We demonstrated that Individualism is a
highly reliable and valid dimension of cultural
differences. Abandoning this core dimension
of cross-cultural research would be a huge
mistake.
•However, individualism is but one dimension
of cultural differences. In the future, crosscultural psychology needs to deepen the
understanding of the causes and consequences
of individualism and they need to validate
additional dimensions of cultural differences.