Variations in Collectivism and Individualism by Ingroup and Culture: Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology CopYright 1996 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 1996, Vol. 71, No. 5, 1037-1054 0022-3514/96/$3.00 Variations in Collectivism and Individualism by Ingroup and Culture: Confirmatory Factor Analyses Eun Rhee and James S. Uleman Hoon Koo Lee New York University Yonsei University Five models of collectivism and individualism, which varied by ingroup and measurement specifi- cation, were tested with confirmatory factor analyses. The sample consisted of 493 college students from South Korea and the United States, with U.S. students divided between Asian Americans and European Americans. Results indicated that collectivism and individualism are best represented by a 4-factor model with the latent variables Kin Collectivism (KC), Kin Individualism ( KI ), Nonkin Collectivism (NC), and Nonkin Individualism (NI). KC and KI were strongly inversely related, but NC and NI were only moderately so. Whereas KC and NC were moderately related within each of the 3 student groups, KI and NI were moderately related only among Koreans and Asian Americans, and not among European Americans. Thus, the meanings of collectivism and individualism vary with ingroup and culture. Measurement, methodological, and conceptual implications are discussed. Research suggests that there are cultural differences in social andis, 1989a, 1989b; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). These behavior (K~itqiba~i & Berry, 1989). However, finding the best constructs potentially clarify and elaborate the "fuzzy" con- ways to represent or organize cross-cultural data is a difficult struct of culture, not only providing a more "concise, coherent, task. Collectivism and individualism have been proposed as integrated, and empirically testable dimension of cultural vari- possible underlying variables (Triandis, 1995 ). Various concep- ation" but also linking psychological phenomena to a cultural tions of collectivism and individualism have been the focus of dimension (Kim, Triandis, K~itgiba~i, Choi, & Yoon, 1994, extensive research in the 15 years since Hofstede (1980) identi- p. 2). l fied these constructs as opposite poles of a value dimension that Collectivism and individualism have been conceptualized as differentiates world cultures. Features associated with collectiv- syndromes that include beliefs, attitudes, norms, roles, values, ism include being concerned with the ingroup's fate and giving and behaviors in different cultures (Triandis, 1989a, 1995). its goals priority over one's own; maintaining harmony, inter- This multidimensional conceptualization has led researchers to dependence, and cooperation and avoiding open conflict within measure these two constructs in various domains, such as those the ingroup; reciprocity among ingroup members, who are re- of values (Bond, 1988; Hofstede & Bond, 1984; Schwartz, 1990, lated in a network of interlocking responsibilities and obliga- 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990), morality (Miller, 1994; tions; self-definition in terms of one's ingroups; and distinguish- Miller, Bersoff, & Harwood, 1990), self-construals (Bochner, ing sharply between ingroups and outgroups. In contrast, fea- 1994; Bond & Cheung, 1983; Cousins, 1989; Markus & Kita- tures associated with individualism include having greater yama, 1991; Rhee, Uleman, Lee, & Roman, 1995; Shweder & concern with personal than ingroup fate and giving personal Bourne, 1982; Singelis, 1994; Triandis, 1989b), attitudes (Hui, goals priority over ingroup goals; feeling independent and emo- 1988; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, tionally detached from one's ingroups; accepting confrontations Asai, & Lucca, 1988 ), and reports of behaviors (Hui, 1988; Ya- within ingroups; and defining the self independently of one's maguchi, 1990, 1994; and see Wheeler, Reis, & Bond, 1989, ingroups (Ho & Chiu, 1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Tri- for systematic observations of behavior). Research with such measures suggests that the cultures of Africa, Asia, and Latin America tend to be collectivistic;those of Western Europe, Can- Eun Rhee and James S. Uleman, Department of Psychology, New ada, and some ethnic groups in the United States tend to be York University; Hoon Koo Lee, Department of Psychology, Yonsei individualistic (Bond, 1988; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1989a, University, Seoul, Korea. 1989b). Portions of this research were supported by Grant SBR-9319611 Although conceptions of collectivism and individualism have from the National Science Foundation. We wish to thank Niall Bolger been elaborated, and possible antecedents and consequences and Patrick Shrout for their support in using LISREL and Serena Chen, noted, several empirical questions need to be addressed if fu- Michele Gelfand, Stacey Lutz, Leonard Newman, and Robert Roman for their helpful and insightful comments on an earlier version of this article. We use the terms collectivism and individualism for consistency Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eun with the literature. However, Kfi~itqiba~i(1987) and others have noted Rhee or James S. Uleman, Department of Psychology, New York Uni- that collectivism has a negative connotation in the West and that labels versity, 6 Washington Place, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10003. such as "culture of relatedness and separateness" or "relational and Electronic mail may be sent via the Internet to [email protected] or individual orientation" may be more appropriate labels for these con- [email protected]. structs (Ho, 1993). 1037 1038 RHEE, ULEMAN, AND LEE ture research is to be systematic and cumulative (Berry, Poor- minants of social behavior may involve "social conformity, tinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992). In this article, we focus on two nonoffensive strategy, submission to social expectations, and issues. The first issue concerns whether collectivistic and indi- worry about external opinions" so that individuals can "achieve vidualistic orientations generalize across various ingroups. The one or more of the purposes of reward attainment, harmony second issue concerns the dimensionality of these orientations, maintenance, impression management, face protection, social specifically, whether or not they are best represented as one, bi- acceptance, and avoidance of punishment, embarrassment, polar, dimension or as two dimensions. conflict, rejection, ridicule, and retaliation in a social situation" One of the crucial distinctions in this literature is the differ- (Yang, 1981, p. 159 ). In sum, ifingroups differ in influence and entiation between ingroups and outgroups, because behavior elicit qualitatively different behaviors because the goals, needs, may differ toward ingroup and outgroup members in different and motives of individuals differ across various interactions, cultures. Triandis (1989a) defined an ingroup as "a group then collectivistic and individualistic orientations may not gen- whose norms, goals, and values shape the behavior of its mem- eralize across all ingroups. bers" (p. 53) or as a group of individuals with whom a person The second issue concerns the dimensionality of these con- feels "similar" because of a common fate (Triandis, 1994). Peo- structs. Are collectivism and individualism bipolar opposites ple may also identify their ingroups on the basis of similar de- (unidimensional) or distinct constructs (two dimensions)? Re- mographic attributes and attitudes or as a result of sharing time, searchers have conceptualized these constructs as either bipolar, place, language, and experience (Hui, 1988). Just as the defi- with collectivism and individualism on opposite ends of a single nition of ingroups varies, the predominant bases for ingroup dimension, or as distinct, multidimensional constructs, each categorization also vary across cultures. Whereas ingroups tend with a constellation of component features. Some have sug- to be ascribed (e.g., kin, religion, village, and nation) and de- gested that individuals can possess both orientations (Kashima, fined through tradition in collectivistic cultures, they tend to be 1987; K~it~iba§i, 1987; Mishra, 1994; Sinha & Tripathi, achieved (through similar beliefs, attitudes, values, and 1994). Because of these differences in conceptualization, re- occupations) in individualistic cultures (Hsu, 1971; Triandis, searchers have developed a variety of measures that tap different 1989a, 1994). Thus, for example, coworkers may be considered components of these constructs, and have placed differential an ingroup in one culture or context and an outgroup in an- emphasis on various components. Most of the conceptual elab- other. Research indicates that the ingroup/outgroup distinction oration, and much empirical work at the individual level, sup- is particularly important in collectivistic cultures, where social ports the multidimensional conception of collectivism and in- behavior varies more strongly as a function of whether the dividualism (Kim et al., 1994; Triandis, Bontempo, et al., targets are members of one's ingroup or outgroup. For instance, 1986). However, there has been a tendency to treat them (or in collectivistic cultures outgroup members are treated in a their features) as bipolar opposites ( see Ho & Chiu, 1994; Kft~it- more individualistic manner than ingroup members (Triandis ~iba§i, 1987; Triandis et al., 1990, for elaboration). Schwartz et al., 1988). In addition, research on the ingroup bias indicates (1990) noted that viewing collectivism and individualism as bi- that virtually any basis for common categorization