Individualism and collectivism: reconsidering old assumptions.
Parker, R. Stephen ; Haytko, Diana L. ; Hermans, Charles M. 等
Traditional views of individualism and collectivism suggest that
Eastern countries will exhibit collectivistic tendencies while Western
countries will exhibit individualistic tendencies. The purpose of this
study was to examine whether these findings have changed in the
intervening 25 years of global evolution. An electronic survey was
administered to 209 students in the United States and 315 students in
China. The survey included 17 items from previous research on
individualism and collectivism. Results indicate that there are
significant differences on all nine questions dealing with collectivism
and six of the eight questions dealing with individualism. However,
these differences were unexpected, showing that the United States is
becoming more collectivist while China is becoming more individualistic.
These results may be due to the globalization of trade and the
increasing homogeneity of Generation Y around the world.
INTRODUCTION
The dichotomous cultural phenomenon of Collectivism/Individualism
was described by Hofstede (1980) over two decades ago. As a sub-set of
cultural measures, this classification scheme defines cultural
differences as being devoted to either creating a society in which
individuals are raised in very strong cohesive groups which protect them
from outside pressures (collectivism) or societies in which individuals
are expected to emphasize their own personal goals with much less regard
for the "group" as a whole (individualism). Triandis and Suh
(2002) suggest that those individuals living in collectivist cultures
view environmental variables, such as cultural norms and obligations, as
being relatively stable and that it is the individual that must be
willing to change to fit into the environment. On the other hand, they
suggest that those raised in individualistic cultures are much more
likely to see themselves as being stable, in terms of attitudes, rights,
and personality, with their environment being the variable that should
change to fit the individual.
It is commonly assumed that cultures emanating from countries such
as China and other Eastern Asian countries would be more likely to
exhibit features common to collectivist societies while Western cultures
would be more likely to exhibit features representative of individualist
societies (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1989a, 1989b). While these
assumptions may have been supported in the past, it is plausible that as
China experiences rapid economic growth and progresses as an
industrialized nation; their culture will be under environmental
pressure to become more individualistic in nature. In addition, western
countries are changing rapidly though immigration. Some researchers
believe that these changes could lead more individualistic cultures to
become more collectivistic (e.g., Lalonde and Cameron, 1993). Therefore,
this study will examine whether the Chinese culture is still solidly
collectivistic or if it is moving toward a more liberal, loose-fitting
individualistic setting and the United States culture is still solidly
individualistic or if it is moving toward a more socialist,
tight-fitting collectivist setting.
LITERATURE
It is clear that the work of Hofstede (1980) brought the concepts
of collectivism and individualism to the forefront of academic interest.
Since the introduction of this early work, numerous articles have been
written which examine the causes and results of these cultural
phenomena. Collectivism and individualism have been conceptualized as
including beliefs, attitudes, norms, roles, values and behaviors in
different cultures (Triandis, 1989a, 1989b, 1995). This multidimensional
conceptualization has led researchers to measure these two constructs in
various domains, such as those of values (Bond, 1988; Miller, Bersoff
& Harwood, 1990), attitudes (Hui, 1988; Hui and Triandis, 1986) and
reports of behaviors (Hui, 1988; Yamaguchi, 1990, 1994). Research using
these measures suggests that the cultures of Africa, Asia and Latin
America tend to be collectivistic; while those of Western Europe, Canada
and the United States tend to be more individualistic (Bond, 1988;
Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1989a, 1989b). Collectivism and individualism
have been proposed as possible underlying variables used to examine
cultural differences in social behavior (Triandis, 1995). These two
variables have been the source of a significant body of research in the
25 years since Hofstede (1980) identified these constructs as opposite
poles of a value dimension differentiating world cultures.
The assumption that groups are socially bound together and that
individuals are obligated to act in a particular fashion (Oyserman, Coon
& Kemmelmeier, 2002) seems to be the central theme of collectivism.
The concept of collectivism suggests that group membership determines
one's identity; the individual should sacrifice their own goals for
the good of the group; satisfaction is derived from carrying out the
expected social role; and emotional restraint is valued as a method of
ensuring group harmony. Features associated with collectivism include
being concerned with the in-groups' fate and giving its' goals
priority over ones' own; maintaining harmony, interdependence and
cooperation and avoiding open conflict within the in-group. Reciprocity
is a key requirement among in-group members, who operate within a
related network of interlocking responsibilities and obligations.
Self-definition is cased in terms of ones' in-groups, and there is
a sharp distinction between in-groups and out-groups. Morris, Davis, and
Allene, (1994) similarly describes collectivism as requiring one to
place the interests of the group ahead of one's personal interests
thereby focusing on cooperation, group harmony, and group welfare. They
indicate that collectivism results in more harmonious relationships,
greater synergies, and better support systems than do Individualistic
cultures. The negative side of this may be a loss of self and greater
emotional dependence on the group.
In contrast to collectivism, Morris, Davis and Allene (1994)
indicate that individualistic cultures place greater emphasis on
self-sufficiency, personal goals, and a deriving of satisfaction and
pride in one's own accomplishments. They also believe that
individualistic cultures may enhance one's self-concept,
self-confidence, selfishness, and expediency. Individualism features
greater concern with personal rather than in-group fate and giving
personal goals priority over in-group goals; feeling independent and
emotionally detached from ones' in-groups; accepting confrontations
within in-groups; and defining the self independently of ones'
in-groups (Ho and Chiu, 1994; Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Triandis,
1989a, 1989b; Triandis, McCusker & Hui, 1990). Oyserman, Coon and
Kemmelmeier (2002) also indicate that the central focus of individualism
is that individuals tend to be very independent of one another. They
maintain that in individualistic societies, people tend to have a very
positive sense of self-worth; personal success, uniqueness and open
emotional expression is valued; and relationships and group memberships
tend to be flexible rather than permanent.
It is of particular interest to find that past research has
indicated that China and numerous Eastern Asian countries are more
likely to have collectivistic cultures than those cultures found in the
west. For example, using the work of Hofstede (1991) to rank countries
based on individualism scores, Fan and Zigang (2004) conclude that
Western countries such as the United States (91), Canada (80), United
Kingdom (89), Germany (67), and France (71) tend to score much higher on
individualism than does China (20). They further suggest that
individuals raised in these Western cultures will tend to rely on
themselves in determining what should be done and will be very reluctant
to cooperate as they place more value on independence and control.
However, the Chinese culture will show more dependence on groups and
institutions and individuals will respond with more loyalty to groups of
which they are a part. A resulting difference in behavior is also shown
in the work of Fan and Zigang (2004) as they found differences in the
way managers from China and the United States react in different
circumstances. Specifically, they found that American managers place
more importance on contracts while Chinese managers place more
importance on relationships; when faced with conflict, American managers
prefer a more direct approach while Chinese managers prefer indirect
forms of influence; American managers are more likely to make risky
decisions; and Chinese managers are likely to pay more attention to
social and interpersonal relationships.
As world cultures become less isolated, change is undoubtedly going
to take place. It may be a mistake, therefore, to automatically assume
that Eastern cultures are going to remain collective and that Western
cultures will remain more individualized in nature. Indeed, literature
suggests that as a country's economy becomes more developed and the
inhabitants of that country become more affluent, their culture tends to
move away from collectivism and move more toward the individualistic end
of the cultural spectrum (Hofstede, 1980 and Triandis, 2004). An
examination of Hofstede's (1980, 1991) work reveals a predominance
of developed nations ranking high on the individualism scale, while less
developed nations rank lower. In another study, Katz, Juni & Shope
(1993) examined two groups of Chinese students. The first group lived in
China while the second group had lived in the United States for at least
a year. Each group was given the Rokeach Value Scale and their responses
to questions measuring Terminal and Instrumental values were then
compared. The results indicate that individuals who are coming from a
more privileged class tend to place higher value on individualism and a
Capitalistic system while those holding a lower or less privileged class
may value collectivism and a more Socialistic system. These results may
be instrumental in understanding not only cultural changes in developing
nations, but also the changes that many Western countries are
experiencing.
Western countries like the United States and Great Britain are
experiencing dramatic increases in immigration, legal as well as
illegal, and there may be a tendency for these groups to be much more
collective in nature than one would find in the general population of
these countries. Lalonde and Cameron (1993) found that immigrants from
lower income areas were more likely to embrace behaviors most often
exhibited in collectivistic cultures. They further found that first and
second generation immigrants, particularly those from disadvantaged
countries, were more likely to exhibit collectivistic behaviors than
immigrants who had been in the country for longer periods of time. Given
the large number of immigrants coming to the United States, especially
from Mexico, and the large number of Middle-eastern immigrants which
have located in Great Britain, we may see a movement, at least
initially, toward collectivism as these individuals look for the
acceptance and security that is often found in group membership.
It is also interesting to note that as a country becomes influenced
by other cultures they become less "tight" and
"loosen" their restrictions on the individual thereby creating
a more individualistic society in which individuals are freer to express
themselves through differing behaviors. Logic, and perhaps simple
observation, leads us to believe that eastern counties tend to be
"tighter" while western countries tend to be
"looser" in their cultural restrictions. Chan et al. (1996)
suggest that individuals living in "tight" cultures would tend
to exhibit higher levels of uncertainty avoidance as norms and behaviors
are well defined and conformity is expected. The contrary view is that
those individuals raised in "loose" cultures tend to have much
less compunction to "follow the rules" and act in a much more
individualistic manner. Indeed, when Chan et al. (1996) tested the
concept of "tightness-looseness" in Japan and the United
States they found significant differences between the two countries and
concluded that, as hypothesized, the Japanese culture was much
"tighter" while the culture of the United States was found to
be much "looser," thereby reinforcing the concepts of
collectivism and individualism.
The beginnings of a possible change in the cultural spectrum have
been found in recent research. As early as 1986, data was indicating
that there might not be as much of a division between cultures as
previously thought. Feather (1986) found that Australian and Chinese
values do not fall as expected on the individualism-collectivism
continuum. In fact, each of the samples showed cultural characteristics
of both individualism and collectivism. Feather concluded that it was
likely that the individualism-collectivism phenomenon may produce
different results depending upon the particular values that are being
examined. Perhaps a more compelling argument for reconsidering the
traditional individualism-collectivism continuum was presented by Chung
and Mallery (1999/2000) as they found that in a comparison of seven
individualism-collectivism (INDCOL) subscales, respondents from the
United States were rated as being more collectivist than Chinese
respondents on six of the seven scales. It was surmised that increases
in foreign and private businesses may be influencing the Chinese
respondents and that larger numbers of Asian Americans may have
influenced the United States sample.
A very recent study conducted by Chen et al. (2006) examined the
personality concepts of idiocentrism and allocentrism, which are
considered to be parallel with the concepts of
individualism-collectivism, across three different cultures. The results
of this study indicated that those respondents from Poland indicated
higher levels of collectivism than those from either the United States
or Hong Kong. While the authors indicated that they had hypothesized
that the Polish respondents would be higher in collectivism than those
from the United States, they did not anticipate that respondents from
the United States would indicate higher levels of collectivism than
those respondents from Hong Kong, which was thought to be a more
collectivistic society. It was concluded that the respondents from Hong
Kong might have been socialized in a large metropolitan area that has
been under strong western influence for many years and are therefore
more individualistic than expected. They further concluded that if the
respondents from the United States had grown up in smaller rural
communities they may have more collectivistic tendencies than might have
been expected. These two studies indicate that there may be a change
taking place in the degree of cultural collectivism that traditional
cultures have previously shown, given that they found a shift in the
United States samples toward becoming more collectivistic.
This change is of particular interest to marketers as a change from
collectivism to individualism may well indicate that consumers living in
previously collectivist cultures will find a desire for new products
that express their individualism. If this is the case, marketers will be
forced to make adjustments to the techniques they are presently using in
order to effectively reach these consumers. For example, Erdem, Swait
& Valenzuela (2006) suggest that in terms of brand usage, those in
collective cultures should be more likely to rely on the brand choice of
the group and rely heavily on information passed through word of mouth.
Their research confirmed the notion that uncertainty avoidance and
collectivism would lead to an increase in the credibility of known and
used brands by increasing that brands overall quality perception. They
further recommend that companies should position their products to match
a country's cultural values, thereby reducing risk and increasing
social acceptance. It is suggested that advertising should communicate
group identification and the feeling that if one uses a product they
will be considered part of a particular group. It is also important to
understand that even though the same products may be bought in both
Western and Eastern cultures, they are not bought for the same reasons
nor do the products serve the same social functions in both cultures
(Wong and Ahuvia, 1998). For example, these authors point out that
brand-named luxury items are being consumed in large volumes by East
Asian consumers. They found, however, that luxury products were not
being purchased for individual personal satisfaction, but rather to show
social conformity as wealthy Asian consumers are "expected" to
purchase these products as an outward show of group or elite class
membership. They further report that consumers from Eastern cultures are
more likely to place greater importance on a products' symbolic
value, if it is publicly consumed, than would consumers from a Western
culture. If cultures that have been traditionally collective are moving
towards more individualistic attitudes, advertising, promotion and
packaging techniques will need to be modified from those focusing on
belongingness and risk reduction to those that emphasize individual
value expression. Understanding differences in traditionally
collectivist and traditionally individualistic countries will help
marketers plan strategies to reach consumers who either consider
other's opinions or rely extensively on their own. The purpose of
this study is to examine whether traditional findings related to
individualism and collectivism may have changed in the intervening 20-25
years of global evolution. Based on the findings of the majority of
existing research, two hypotheses were formed regarding individualism
and collectivism in relation to the United States and China.
H1: Collectivism will be stronger in China than in the United
States.
H2: Individualism will be stronger in the United States than in
China.
METHODOLOGY
In order to better understand individualism and collectivism within
the United States and China, an electronic survey was administered to
209 students at a large Midwestern public University in the United
States and 315 students at a large satellite university in Dalian,
China. It is important to note that Dalian, China is located along the
rapidly growing coastline of China and is also a major port for
international commerce. The electronic survey consisted of 60 questions
or statements, 17 of which dealt with individualism/collectivism.
Participants responded on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). All of the scale items were drawn from previous
research. With respect to collectivism, seven of the items were taken
from Huis' Nonkin collectivism scale (Hui, 1988), and two items
were taken from the Triandis general attitudes general others
collectivism scale (Triandis, 1994). With respect to individualism, six
of the items were taken from Huis' Nonkin Individualism scale (Hui,
1988) and two were taken from the Triandis general attitudes general
others individualism scale (Triandis, 1994). The items were selected
based upon their applicability in both cultures. The items that were
dropped from the Hui (1988) scale were the three in each category
related to dealing with neighbors. Given that both samples were student
samples, we felt that studying behaviors toward neighbors was less
important than toward in-groups and out-groups. The 17 questions dealing
with the two variables of individualism and collectivism are included in
Appendix A.
The literature related to individualism and collectivism is
somewhat mixed as it relates to Western and Asian cultures. The norm has
been to expect Asian countries to be much more aligned with collectivism
and Western cultures to exhibit more individualistic characteristics.
The data presented in this study joins the growing literature that tends
to contradict the earlier assumptions. Data presented in Table 1
compares Chinese students with students from the United States in terms
of their views on collectivism.
Results indicate that significant differences were found for all
nine questions, which dealt with collectivism. It is most interesting to
note that the Chinese sample scored higher on only three of the nine
questions while the United States sample scored higher on the remaining
six questions. It is of particular interest to find that the United
States sample scored higher on questions that seem to be at the core of
collectivism. Specifically, they scored significantly higher on
questions eight and nine that read, "One of the pleasures in life
is to be related interdependently with others" and "One of the
pleasures of life is to feel part of a large group of people." The
findings shown in Table 1 would indicate that, overall, the United
States sample values collectivism more highly than does the Chinese
sample therefore, H1 would be rejected.
The results depicted in Table 2 deal with the respondents views
toward individualism. It is interesting to note that six of the eight
questions were found to be significantly different between the two
samples and the United States sample was found to be higher on only one
of the eight questions. The only question where the United States sample
scored higher was question three which read "When I am with my
colleagues or school friends, I would rather assert my individual
opinion than simply remain part of the group." The Chinese sample
recorded mean scores higher than their United States counterparts on all
of the remaining questions dealing with individualism therefore, H2
would be rejected.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that the United States may be
becoming less individualistic and moving more toward a collectivistic
way of thinking. China also seems to be experiencing a shift in the
country's cultural beliefs. The data shown in this study seems to
rather clearly show an unexpected difference between the groups. This
difference may be indicative of a shift toward a more individualistic
society in present day China from the more traditional collective
society of the past. Berry, Kim, Minde & Mok (1987) suggested that
populations that are in cultural transition, such as the Chinese, are
particularly interesting to study because the individuals may experience
cultural, social and psychological changes. They may also be
experiencing changes in their political, economic, religious, social and
linguistic systems. Changes in their social relationships may require
redefinition of in-groups and out-groups and assigning different
significance to ethnicity. Finally, psychological changes may require
shifts in attitudes, values, behaviors and lifestyles. The Chinese
students who participated in this study were taking classes in English
and registered at a satellite campus of a U.S. school. Thus, they are
not your typical Chinese, but instead, more exposed to western thinking
and values than students studying in a purely Chinese educational
institution. This may be reflected in their responses showing the
increases in individualism and the decrease in collectivism. However,
while these students have been exposed to the American style of
learning, none had ever left China.
With respect to the findings that American students exhibited
greater collectivism than in past studies, this could be due to the
student sample as well, but for different reasons than above. Currently,
college students are the main swell of Generation Y. As a cohort group,
they are much different from previous generations. They have been raised
differently; Generation Y is the best educated and most culturally
diverse generation in history (Wolburg and Pokrywczynski, 2001), a
combination which has made this generation exceedingly tolerant and
open-minded toward different lifestyles such as homosexuality, single
parent households, etc. (Morton, 2002; Paul, 2001). The television has
played a significant role in Generation Y's life, and as such MTV
and reality shows have led to a generation attracted to bold,
fast-moving graphics and the belief that everyone has an equal voice
(Paul, 2001). Additionally, this cohort multi-tasks with media, with
over 50% using more than one medium simultaneously (Kennedy, 2001). This
group was raised in groups, starting with "play dates" and
culminating in team sports. The focus of their young lives was teamwork
and an "everybody wins" mentality. This may have translated
into more of a group mentality than we have seen in prior generations.
Stone, et al. (2001) define them as follows: their peer group, and its
opinion of them, is very important to them; they have tight groups of
friends, almost tribal in nature; their friends understand them, grow up
with them and earn their trust. Miles (2003) claims that Gen Yers crave
"connections" and group projects that allow them to work with
talented colleagues. These individuals have spent 20% of their youth by
themselves because of divorce and dual income families. Thus, they often
prefer working in a group to solve problems. A study by Yankolovich
Partners, as reported in U.S. News and World Report, described this
generation as "pluralistic," meaning that distinctions of
race, ethnicity and gender are of little interest to them-they tend to
overlook differences and treat everyone the same (Leo, 2003). All of
these factors could explain our results indicating that the U.S. sample
is more collectivistic and less individualistic than in past research.
CONCLUSION
In this research, Chinese students were found to be less
collectivistic and more individualistic than in past research. Likewise,
the U.S. students were found to be more collectivistic and less
individualistic than in the past. A number of factors could have
contributed to these findings. While both samples of students are
members of Gen Y, only the American students have experienced the
technological changes associated with this cohort. China is just
beginning to experience western culture and western practices, and the
students in this sample are at the forefront of this melding of
cultures, given that they are studying at an American University's
satellite campus, even though none has ever left China. Our findings
support the recent work of Chen et al. (2006) who also used student
samples and found a shift in the U.S. sample toward higher levels of
collectivism. Future research could examine whether this shift is
evident in other samples of individuals, who are not part of Gen Y.
It could also be that general cultural, political, economic, and
social changes are occurring for both samples in this study. Future
research could monitor the trends in these changes and the resulting
changes in attitudes and reported behaviors with respect to collectivism
and individualism. In addition, given the changing roles of men and
women in developing countries such as China, studying how these changes
impact attitudes could be beneficial. While there are many promising
areas of future study, researchers should avoid interpreting all
cross-cultural differences as attributable to these particular
variables. These dimensions should not be viewed as the end all for
cultural differences (Hofstede 1991). Instead, collectivism and
individualism are broad approximations of cultural dimensions that need
further definition and elaboration. More importantly, they are not the
only dimensions of cultural differences (Rhee, Uleman and Lee, 1996).
Only when we understand the relational context in which collectivism and
individualism are manifest will we begin to understand the specific kind
and quality of the relationships between an individual and the group and
how those relationships affect marketing strategy.
Appendix A
Collectivism and Individualism
Collectivism: Questions
Col1. If possible, I would co-own a car among close friends in
order to have them save money.
Col2. I would like to live near close friends.
Col3. I agree with my friends on where to go shopping and dining.
Col4. When a school friend does me a favor, I feel obligated to
return the favor.
Col5. Forming a study group with classmates does not bring any
loss; it can only help me.
Col6. To do well in school, classmates' help is crucial.
Col7. I would lend money to a classmate who needs money to
buy books.
Col8. One of the pleasures in life is to be related
interdependently with others.
Col9. One of the pleasures of life is to feel part of a
large group of people Individualism: Questions
Ind1. I prefer to deal with personal problems, instead of
consulting friends about them.
Ind2. When deciding on an occupation, I do not consider
my close friends opinions.
Ind3. When I am with my colleagues or school friends, I would
rather assert my individual opinion than simply
remain part of the group.
Ind4. I have never loaned class notes to any fellow students.
Ind5. In general, collaborating with a person who is less
competent than you, does not bring any positive results.
Ind6. Let's assume a group of students is discussing where to
eat. The most popular choice is a new restaurant.
However, one of the students claims that he had eaten
there before and the food was terrible. Despite his
opinion, if the others decide to go to that restaurant,
would you agree that you should Not go with them?
Ind7. When faced with a difficult personal problem, it is
better to decide what to do yourself, rather than
follow the advice of others.
Ind8. One should live life independently of others as much
as possible.
REFERENCES
Berry, J.W., U. Kim, T. Minde, & D. Mok (1987).
"Comparative studies of acculturative stress" International
Migration Review, 31. 491-571.
Bond, M.H. (1988). "Finding universal dimensions of individual
variation in multicultural studies of value: The Rokeach and Chinese
value surveys" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55.
1009-1015.
Chan, D.K.S., M.J. Gelfand, H C. Triandis, & O. Tzeng (1996).
"Tightness-Looseness Revisited: Some Preliminary Analyses in Japan
and the United States" International Journal of Psychology, 31(1),
1-12.
Chen, S. X., N. H. H. Hui, M. H, Bond, A.Y.F. Sit, S. Wong, V.S.Y.
Chow, V. Miu-Chi Lun, & R.W.M. Law (2006). "Reexamining
Personal, Social, and Cultural Influences on Compliance Behavior in the
United States, Poland, and Hong Kong" The Journal of Social
Psychology, 146(2), 223-244.
Chung, T. & P. Mallery (1999/2000). "Social Comparison,
Individualism-Collectivism, and Self-Esteem in China and the United
States," Current Psychology, Winter, 18(4) 340-352.
Erdem T., J. Swait, & A.Valenzuela (2006). "Brands as
Signals: A Cross-Country Validation Study" Journal of Marketing,
January, 70, 34-49.
Fan, P. & Z. Zigang (2004). "Cross-cultural Challenges
when Doing Business in China." Singapore Management Review, 26(1),
81-90.
Feather, N.T. (1986). "Value Systems Across Cultures:
Australia and China" International Journal of Psychology, 21,
697-715.
Ho, D.Y., & C. Chiu (1994). "Component ideas of
individualism, collectivism, and social organization: An application in
the study of Chinese culture" In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C.
Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (eds.), Individualism and
collectivism: Theory, method, and applications, (pp.123-136). Thousands
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International
Differences In Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hui, C.H. (1988). "Measurement of
Individualism-Collectivism" Journal of Research on Personality, 22,
17-36.
Hui, C.H., & H.C. Triandis (1986).
"Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural
researchers" Journal of cross-Cultural Psychology, 7, 225-248.
Katz, B., S. Juni, & C. Shope (1993). "The Values of
Chinese Students: At Home and Abroad" International Journal of
Psychology, 28(6), 761-773.
Kennedy, L. 2001. "The Up & Coming Generation."
Retail Merchandiser 41 (8): 66.
Lalonde, R.N. & J.E. Cameron (1993). "An Intergroup
Perspective on Immigrant Acculturation with a Focus on Collective
Strategies" International Journal of Psychology, 28(1), 57-74.
Leo, J. (2003). "The good-news generation" U.S. News and
World Report, 135(15), 60.
Markus, H.R., & S. Kitayama (1991). "Culture and self:
Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation" Psychological
Review, 98, 224-253.
Miles, M. (2003). "Gen Yers can be good fit for your biz"
Tire Business, 20(24), .9.
Miller, J.G., D.M. Bersoff, & R.L. Harwood (1990).
"Perceptions of social responsibility in India and the United
States: Moral imperatives or personal decisions?" Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 33-47.
Morris, M.H., D.L. Davis, & J.W. Allene (1994). "Fostering
Corporate Entrepreneurship: Cross-Cultural Comparisons of the Importance
of Individualism Versus Collectivism" Journal of International
Business Studies, 25(1), 6589.
Morton, L.P. 2002. "Targeting Generation Y," Public
Relations Quarterly 47 (2): 46-48.
Oyserman, D., H.M. Coon, & M. Kemmelmeier (2002).
"Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of
Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses" Psychological Bulletin,
128(1), 3-72.
Paul, P. 2001. "Getting Inside Gen Y." American
Demographics 23(9): 42-49.
Rhee, E., J.S. Uleman & H.K. Lee (1996). "Variations in
Collectivism and Individualism by Ingroup and Culture: Confirmatory
Factor Analysis" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
71(5), 1037-1054.
Stone, M., H. Stanton, J. Kirkham & W. Payne (2001). "The
digerati: Generation Y finds its voice. Why cannot brands do the
same?" Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for
Marketing, 10(2), 158-167.
Triandis, H.C. (1989a). "Cross-cultural studies of
individualism and collectivism" In J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 41-133).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Triandis, H.C. (1989b). "The self and social behavior in
differing cultural contexts" Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
Triandis, H.C. (1994). "Theoretical and methodological
approaches to the study of collectivism and individualism" In U.
Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.),
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp.
41-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Triandis, H.C. (2004). "The Many Dimensions of Culture"
Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 88-93.
Triandis, H.C., C. McCusker, & C.H. Hui (1990).
"Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism" Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1009-1020.
Triandis, H.C. & E.M. Suh (2002). "Cultural Influences on
Personality" Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160.
Wolburg, J.M. & J. Pokrywczynski. 2001. "A Psychographic
Analysis of Generation Y College Students." Journal of Advertising
Research 41(5): 33-53.
Wong, N.Y. & A.C. Ahuvia (1998). "Personal Taste and
Family Face: Luxury Consumption in Confucian and Western Societies"
Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 423-441
Yamaguchi, S. (1990). Personality and cognitive correlates of
collectivism among the Japanese: Validation of collectivism scale.
Unpublished manuscript.
Yamaguchi, S. (1994). "Collectivism among the Japanese: A
perspective from the self" In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C.
Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and
collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 157-174). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
R. Stephen Parker, Missouri State University
Diana L. Haytko, Missouri State University
Charles M. Hermans, Missouri State University
Table 1: Collectivism
Question China China United United Sig.
Mean Standard States States
Deviation Mean Standard
Deviation
Col1 3.61 1.55 2.19 1.58 .000
Col2 4.17 1.52 5.92 1.11 .000
Col3 4.34 1.34 5.15 1.19 .000
Col4 4.52 1.43 5.33 1.21 .000
Col5 4.28 1.35 4.82 1.60 .000
Col6 4.39 1.39 4.01 1.64 .007
Col7 4.49 1.46 3.54 1.70 .000
Col8 4.39 1.36 4.85 1.22 .000
Col9 4.57 1.34 4.89 1.30 .007
Reliability ([alpha]) for the 9-item scale = .763
Table 2: Individualism
Question China China United United Sig.
Mean Standard States States
Deviation Mean Standard
Deviation
Ind1 4.14 1.32 4.09 1.61 .740
Ind2 4.07 1.38 3.73 1.74 .015
Ind3 4.15 1.33 4.66 1.31 .000
Ind4 3.86 1.59 1.85 1.31 .000
Ind5 4.04 1.35 3.60 1.70 .002
Ind6 4.10 1.26 3.10 1.50 .000
Ind7 4.25 1.36 4.15 1.50 .425
Ind8 4.49 1.36 3.55 1.59 .000
Reliability ([alpha]) for the 9-item scale = .763
