culture are important in producing advertising; individualism and collectivism are part of the culture dimension.

1. By: Harry C. Triandis and Christopher McCusker
Presented By:
Omar Thabit
Noorazlin Ani

2.  Individualism is very high in the United States, Britain, and British-influenced
countries, such as Australia (Hofstede, 1980), and has been studied by diverse
methods, both historical (Inkeles, 1983) and empirical (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan,
Swidler, & Tipton, 1985).
 In many samples from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, a contrasting cultural
syndrome, called collectivism, has been identified.
 Collectivists emphasize values that promote the welfare of their ingroup,
whereas individualists emphasize values that promote individual goals.
 Campbell (1986, p. 130) stated: "Innovation, validation, and cumulative growth
in a research tradition are intrinsically incompatible goals, in that too much of
one jeopardizes the others." He supports funding policies that place greater
emphasis on replication that is "heteromethod/cross-cultural." The present
studies use this approach.
 Thus, the "new look" advocated by Campbell calls for multiple methods, both
hard and soft, and replications under diverse conditions. It rejects both the
extremes of positivism and constructionism, but uses elements of both
approaches.

3.  Individualism-collectivism constructs have been popular in most of the
social sciences for about a century. For example, the terms Gemeinschaft
(community) and Gesellschaft (society), in sociology, or relational versus
individualistic value orientation, in anthropology, have been used for some
time.
 These factors have been identified both in factor analyses where the culture
was the unit of analysis and in factor analyses where the individual was the
unit of analysis. However, the importance of these factors was different.
Across cultures, Family Integrity and Distance From Ingroups accounted for
more variance; within cultures, Self-Reliance and Interdependence and
Sociability accounted for more variance. It is convenient to have different
terms for dimensions that are measured across cultures and within cultures.
Corresponding to individualism across cultures, we have a personality
attribute we call idiocentrism; corresponding to collectivism across cultures,
we have a personality attribute we call allocentrism (Triandis et al, 1985).

4.  In short, it seems that collectivism is best described by Family
Integrity (the only factor that correlated with Hofstede's 1980, index)
and individualism by Emotional Detachment; allocentrism is best
described by Interdependence and Sociability and idiocentrism by
Self-Reliance.

5.  Collectivism can best be defined by means of several attributes. A
person is most likely to be a member of a collectivist culture if the
person has each of the attributes.
 Theoretically, one can classify people by means of multidimensional
schemes that are based on similarities in patterns of having or not
having particular attributes. This means that, in addition to "pure
collectivism " there are also many intermediate types, as well as
types with both individualist and collectivist attributes. The following
section presents the attributes of the pure collectivist-individualist
types.

6.  First, collectivists pay much attention to a certain ingroup and, compared
with individualists, behave more differently toward members of that group
than toward members of outgroups. The ingroup can best be defined by
common fate. In prehistoric times the ingroup must have been the unit of
survival, or the food community. If there was no food, all members of the
ingroup starved together.
 Individualists also have ingroups and outgroups, but they do not see as
sharp a contrast between them and do not behave as differently toward
ingroup and outgroup members as do collectivists. When there is conflict
between ingroup and individual goals in collectivist cultures, ingroup goals
have primacy over individual goals; in individualist cultures, personal goals
have primacy over ingroup goals.

7.  Collectivists tend to think of groups as the basic unit of analysis of
society (Nakane, 1970). Individualists tend to think of individuals as
the basic unit of analysis.
 This tendency will become even stronger in collectivist cultures
because the emphasis on ingroup harmony requires ingroup
members to conform and to be homogeneous.
 In collectivist cultures there is great concern about what happens in
the ingroup and to ingroup members. This is also true in individualist
cultures, but in such cultures, the ingroup is narrow, consisting only of
first-degree relatives and a few "best friends," and there is much
emotional detachment from most larger ingroups. The self is defined
as an appendage of the ingroup in collectivist cultures and as a
separate and distinct entity in individualist cultures.

8.  Collectivist cultures have few stable ingroups, and people are
influenced very much by these ingroups. Behavior in individualistic
cultures is rarely greatly influenced by ingroups, because there are so
many ingroups and they often make contradictory demands. The
individual decides which group to pay attention to and "picks and
chooses"
 Vertical relationships (e.g, parent-child) that are in conflict with
horizontal relationships (e.g, spouse-spouse) take priority in
collectivist cultures, and vice versa in individualistic cultures.
 Certain values such as achievement, pleasure, and competition are
emphasized by individualists more than by collectivists, whereas
family integrity, security, obedience, and conformity are valued more
by collectivists.

9.  As people become affluent, they become financially independent
and independent from their ingroups. Affluence
 is also usually associated with industrialization and is related to
cultural complexity (indexed by such variables as the number of
distinct occupations, levels of political organization, and population
density). Complex cultures tend to be more individualistic than
simple cultures because there are many potential ingroups and
individuals have an opportunity to choose whether to stay in or
leave these ingroups.
 Affluence is related to having small families, including having only
one child. Small families allow parents to raise their children
individualistically, and children of such families tend to be
idiocentric.

10.  In agricultural cultures there is more collectivism and conformity (Berry,
1979) because it is more functional to conform to authorities while
public works (e.g, building of irrigation canals) are being performed
 Exposure to the modern mass media also increases the shift from
collectivism to individualism, because most television programs are
produced in the individualistic cultures.
 Social mobility and geographical mobility also contribute to
individualism. Those who have migrated to other countries are more
individualistic. Movement from rural to urban centers also is correlated
with individualism.
 Child-rearing practices that characterize individualist cultures
emphasize the child's autonomy, creativity, self-reliance, and
independence from family. In collectivist cultures obedience, duty, and
sacrifice for the ingroup are emphasized.

11.  Socialization can be conceived of as both an antecedent and
consequence of individualism. Individualists raise their children to
be self-reliant and independent, but self-reliance and independence
also create individualism. Thus, circular causation is involved
between the cultural syndrome and socialization. Among the
consequences, the most important concern social behavior.

12.  Collectivists behave toward their friends and coworkers with more
intimacy (e.g, revealing personal information), and toward their
outgroups with less intimacy, than do individualists. The hierarchical
structure of collectivist cultures means that there is more
subordination and less superordination toward ingroup members in
collectivist than in individualist cultures; also, there should be less
subordination and more superordination of outgroups by
collectivists than by individualists. Because individualists must enter
and leave many ingroups, they develop superb skills for superficial
interactions, but do not have very good skills for intimate behaviors.
Some of the data for these statements can be found in reports by
Triandis et al.(1986, 1988), and a review of the literature can be
found in Triandis (1990).

13.  Method 1: Social Content of the Self
 To test this hypothesis, we asked subjects in both collectivist and individualists
cultures to respond to the Kuhn and McPartland (1954) "I am . . ." method.
Subjects were required to complete 20 sentences that began with the words "I
am. . ." as if they were talking to themselves and not paying attention to logic.
Their responses were content analyzed by considering whether each response
was linked to a group or a demographic category with which the subject might
experience common fate. For example, "I am a son" refers to family, "I am
Roman Catholic" refers to religion, "I am living in New York" refers to location,
and so on.
 We noted the percentage of the subject's responses that were linked to a social
entity and called this the %S score. In addition, we noted how many responses
referred to a particular social category. For example, if three of the responses
were linked to family, the availability of family was 3. Finally, we noted how early
in the hierarchy of 20 responses the family was mentioned. This measure was
called accessibility (Higgins & King, 1981). If, for example, the family was the
first response, the family category had an accessibility of 20; if it was the last
response, it had an accessibility of 1.

14.  Method 1: Social Content of the Self
 For the Hawaii samples, we also had information about the cultural
background of their 10 best friends, and we used that information to
estimate their degree of collectivism. If they were foreign students from East
Asia whose friends were also from East Asia, they were given a score of 1.
If they were Americans of European background with friends who were
Americans of European background, they were given a score of 7. The
intermediate values were given to different combinations of background and
friend's background (e.g, second-generation American of East Asian
background, with many American friends of European background: a score
of 4). This rating correlated with the subject's %S - .24 (based on N = 183,
 Thus, it appears that %S is a satisfactory measure of collectivism.
Collectivists do indeed define themselves more in ingroup terms than do
individualists. Incidentally, this individual differences score varies from zero
to 100%, but individuals with a zero %S score were found only in the United
States, and individuals with a 100% %S score were found only in the PRC.

15.  Method 2: Judgments of the Homogeneity of Ingroups and
Outgroups
 We presented to subjects from collectivist and individualist cultures the names
of ethnic groups commonly found in their social environment. We asked them to
judge "how much agreement you think there is about what people ought to do,
what goals people should have, and what standards should be used to judge if a
behavior is good or bad, among members of the following communities." Their
judgments were made on a 10-point scale ranging from total dissimilarity of
views (0) to total similarity of views (9).
 In addition, the same stimulus groups were used to measure the perceived
psychological distance of the self from these groups. This was done by rating
the "distance" between each subject and each group on a scale ranging from
we are as similar as possible (1) to we are as different as possible (9). Our
theoretical notions lead to the expectation that collectivists will see their
ingroups as more homogeneous than their outgroups; hence, the greater the
distance between self and the group, the more heterogeneous the group would
be judged to be.

16.  Method 2: Judgments of the Homogeneity of Ingroups and Outgroups
 Table 1 presents the homogeneity ratings from Hawaii and Illinois.
 According to our hypothesis, collectivists will perceive their ingroups as more
homogeneous than their outgroups, whereas individualists will perceive their ingroups as
more heterogeneous than their outgroups. Table 1 shows that the Hawaii collectivist
samples support the prediction (Chinese-background subjects—only one outgroup was
more homogeneous than the ingroup, binomial test, p < .01; Filipino-background subjects
—only one again, binomial test, p < .01; Japanese-background subjects—no case where
an outgroup was perceived to be more homogeneous than the ingroup, p < .001). The
individualist samples tended to be in the opposite direction, but did not reach significance.
 The Illinois Whites, in 11 of 15 cases, rated the outgroup as more homogeneous than the
ingroup. In the case of Blacks, the outgroup was seen as more homogeneous than the
ingroup in only 2 of the IS cases (p < .001), so they responded like the collectivists.

18.  Method 2: Judgments of the Homogeneity of Ingroups and Outgroups
 Table 2 presents the same data obtained in the PRC.
 Table 2 is important because it indicates that the Chinese, who are not a minority in
their own country, also perceive ingroups as more homogeneous than outgroups.
In this case we have 4 ingroups (residents of different Chinese provinces) and 10
outgroups. The means fall perfectly in the expected pattern.
 Note also, in Table 2, that the more distance between the perceiver and a group,
the more likely that group is to be perceived as heterogeneous. That was
determined separately for each of the 39 Chinese subjects. In the case of 31 of the
39 subjects, the greater the distance, the greater the perceived heterogeneity. This
was significant at p < .001 by means of a binomial test.
 In addition, the 39 rank-order correlations were converted to z scores, and the z
scores were averaged and reconverted into correlations. The results indicated a
correlation of—.57 (p < .0001). Thus, the greater the perceived distance, the more
heterogeneous the group is perceived to be.

20.  Method 2: Judgments of the Homogeneity of Ingroups and
Outgroups
 Table 3 shows the distance data from Hawaii and Illinois. As expected, from
common sense, the ingroup means show less distance than the outgroup means.
For all groups, the number of cases of the ingroup being closer to the self than
the outgroup was highly significant (p < .002).
 However, we were interested in the possibility that the ratio of distances from
outgroups versus ingroups might be larger for the collectivist than the individualist
samples. The outcome was equivocal. In the case of the Chinese, the ratio was
1.53. For the Filipinos and Japanese, the ratios were 2.5 and 2.38, respectively;
for the European- background Hawaii sample, the ratio was 1.79; and for the
Illinois Whites and Illinois Blacks, the ratios were 1.9 and 2.6, respectively. Thus,
there is a tendency in the expected direction, but it does not reach significance (p
<. 14).

22.  Method 3: Attitude Items
 Attitude items analyzed in previous studies (Triandis et al, 1986,
1988), both across and within cultures, were used with some of the
samples. The hypothesis was that the more collectivist the sample,
the more agreement there will be with the items of the Family
Integrity factor.

23.  Method 3: Attitude Items
 Table 4 presents the means of the standard scores obtained from each sample.
The differences between idiocentrics and allocentrics on the Self-Reliance and
Distance From Ingroups factors should be ignored, because they are artifacts of
the way allocentrics and idiocentrics were denned.
 If the standard scores of the two collectivist cultures, on the left, are consistently
different from the standard scores of the two individualist samples, on the right,
it would be appropriate to assume that there is a difference between collectivists
and individualists on those items. Inspection of the table shows that the
collectivists are somewhat higher on Self-Reliance; substantially higher on
Family Integrity, as was hypothesized; slightly higher on Interdependence; and
quite a bit lower on Distance From Ingroups than the individualist samples. The
hypothesis was based on previous work (Triandis et al, 1986), but the additional
findings fall rather neatly into the general theoretical framework, with the
exception of the collectivist emphasis on self-reliance, which may be a reflection
of modernization pressures in both the PRC and Hong Kong.

25.  Method 4: Value Items
 The 56 value items developed by Schwartz (see Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987) were
used with some of the individualist and collectivist samples. This instrument
consists of 30 values presented in uppercase letters with a synonym in
parentheses, such as, EQUALITY (equal opportunity for all), and 26 attributes,
such as, INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self-sufficient).
 The subjects judged these stimuli on the extent to which they constituted "a
guiding principle in my life" on a scale ranging from not important (0) to of
supreme importance (7) (an option of/ am opposed to i7 —f 1 ] was available for
those who wanted it).
 The hypothesis was that the more collectivist the sample, the more they would
emphasize values that promote the welfare of the ingroup (e.g., FAMILY,
SECURITY, TRUE FRIENDSHIP, and HONORING PARENTS AND
ELDERS), and the more individualist the sample, the more subjects would
emphasize values that promote individual goals (e.g., EXCITING LIFE,
INDEPENDENT, DARING, and CHOOSING OWN GOALS).

26.  Method 4: Value Items
 The Schwartz values instrument was used only with the U.S.
allocentrics and idiocentrics (described earlier) and the PRC sample.
Table 5 presents the means. The hypothesis was that collectivists will
endorse values that promote the welfare of an ingroup, whereas
individualists will favor values that promote individual goals. Of special
interest are data patterns that show that both US. samples are either
higher or lower than the Chinese, especially if the allocentrics are closer
to the Chinese than are the idiocentrics.
 The values SOCIAL ORDER, NATIONAL SECURITY, SOCIAL
RECOGNITION, and ACCEPTING MY POSITION IN LIFE fall
into this pattern.
Continued..

27.  Method 4: Value Items
 Both the PRC and the allocentrics are higher than the idiocentrics on these values, AN
EXCITING LIFE and A VARIED LIFE fall into the pattern where the PRC and allocentrics
are lower than the idiocentrics. In addition, we can examine the cultural differences that
are not parallel to the personality differences. They show that the Americans are higher
than the Chinese on FREEDOM, SENSE OF BELONGING, RESPECT FOR
TRADITION, TRUE FRIENDSHIP, LOYAL, ENJOYING LIFE, and DEVOUT,
whereas the Chinese are higher than the Americans on A SPIRITUAL LIFE and
CREATIVITY.
 The hypothesis has received some support, because freedom, exciting life, varied life,
enjoying life, and devout are very individual values, and social order, national security, and
accepting my position in life serve the ingroup.
 However, unexpectedly, the Americans were higher than the Chinese on values that imply
a "social connection" (sense of belonging, respect for tradition, true friendship, and loyal).
Perhaps the drive toward modernization erodes first those values that connect people, and
only after a culture becomes modern can these values be emphasized again.

29.  Method 4: Value Items
 The differences between the allocentrics and idiocentrics suggest that this personality
difference fits the general theoretical framework of the Appendix.
 The idiocentrics are high on EQUALITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE, INDEPENDENT,
DARING, PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, and CHOOSING OWN
GOALS, whereas the allocentrics are higher on SENSE OF BELONGING,
FAMILY, SECURITY, TRUE FRIENDSHIP, LOYAL, HUMBLE,
HONORING PARENTS AND ELDERS, ACCEPTING MY POSITION IN
LIFE, and PRESERVING MY PUBLIC IMAGE. It may well be the case that the
better support for the framework of the Appendix with the American data reflects the
fact that the framework is an American creation. But it could also be that the
translations were not perfect, and hence the Chinese data are not as good as the
American data. Certainly, sample sizes for the American data are more adequate,
and this suggests that a larger set of Chinese data would be desirable.
Continued…

30.  Method 4: Value Items
 Another way to look at the data is to simply examine those cases where the
Chinese and the allocentrics are similar in their responses, or the Chinese
are different from both American samples. From that perspective,
individualist values are EQUALITY, FREEDOM, AN EXCITING LIFE,
A VARIED LIFE, and ENJOYING LIFE. Collectivist values are
SOCIAL ORDER, SELF-DISCIPLINE, SOCIAL RECOGNITION,
HUMBLE, HONORING PARENTS AND ELDERS, ACCEPTING
MY POSITION IN LIFE, and PRESERVING MY PUBLIC IMAGE.
This perspective seems to fit the framework of the Appendix quite well. So,
perhaps these are the "quintessential" values of individualists and
collectivists

32.  Method 5: Perceptions of Social Behavior as a Function of Social
Distance
 The method of direct estimation (Stevens, 1966) was used so that each subject could
construct personal social distance, association, dissociation, intimacy, formality,
superordination, and subordination scales. We did not wish to make the assumption that
association is a mirror image of dissociation, and so on. We allowed each subject to
generate a personal scale for each attribute.
 The method of direct estimation uses a standard against which subjects make
psychophysical judgments. In the case of social distance, the subjects were asked to
"consider the person with whom you feel closest" and to use 1 point to reflect their
social distance toward that person. They were then presented with 20 stimuli (e.g,
father, the religious group you like least) and asked to estimate their social distance
toward these stimuli, using the same units of measurement as for the closest person.
Because people use numbers differently, each subject's ratings were divided by the
geometric mean of all of their judgments.
Continued…

33.  Method 5: Perceptions of Social Behavior as a Function of
Social Distance
 This, in effect, standardizes the ratings on the scale and brings them to a
common metric. This was apparently achieved, because the social distance
judgments obtained from different samples were highly similar for most
stimuli.
 The six qualities are (e.g., associative behaviors are positive behaviors,
such as to help, support, show liking, admiration, respect, and so forth for
someone [e.g, to kiss]). Again, the values of the eight social behavior stimuli
for each scale were divided by their geometric mean to standardize the
scale values.

34.  Method 5: Perceptions of Social Behavior as a Function
of Social Distance
 The perceptions of social behavior as a function of social distance are
reflected in Figures 1-5. Whenever curves are to be compared, it is
important to establish that the positions of the stimuli on one axis are more
or less equivalent. Table 6 presents the social distance positions of the
stimuli used in the PRC and the United States. As can beseen, the range of
the stimuli is about the same. Many of the stimuli have the same scale
values. When a difference in scale value is shown, it can be explained from
other known factors.
 For example, the larger social distance toward "roommate" in the PRC than
the Illinois samples reflects the fact that roommates in the PRC are
assigned by the authorities rather than selected by the individual, and there
are usually six or so roommates in each university dormitory room.
Continued…

35.  Method 5: Perceptions of Social Behavior as a Function
of Social Distance
 Figures 1-6 show the perceived Association, Dissociation, Intimacy,
Formality, Superordination, and Subordination as a function of social
distance curves. The PRC curves come from the same sample of 34
responding to two sets of stimuli—one given to them by the experimenter
(imposed etic) and one generated by themselves (emic). The Illinois sample
of 99 allocentrics and 106 idiocentrics was defined earlier. The graphs
showthe mean curves of the subjects, as well as the mean curves obtained
from the two types of stimuli from the PRC sample. Campbell (1964) has
emphasized the importance of placing cultural differences in the context of
similarities; otherwise, one is not sure that the subjects have responded to
the same task. Thus, it is most gratifying that many of the curves are not
different from each other. Specifically, there are no cultural differences in
the Association = /(social distance) and Formality = /(social distance)
curves.

36.  Method 5: Perceptions of Social Behavior as a Function of Social
Distance
 Thus, there is partial support for the hypothesis that collectivists will behave more differently
toward outgroups than ingroups than is the case for individualists. Although the data do not
support the hypothesis for Association and Formality, they do support it for Dissociation,
Subordination, and Superordination. In particular, the collectivists show more subordination
toward ingroups and less toward outgroups than the individualists, and more superordination
and dissociation toward outgroups than do the individualists.
 Graphs such as those in Figures 1-6 were plotted by each student for him- or herself and for his
or her subject. The graphs were later averaged. The mean graphs of subjects from collectivist
cultures showed sharper differences between ingroups and outgroups than the graphs of
individualists on the dimensions of Association, Dissociation, Intimacy, Subordination, and
Superordination. On Formality, the data from the collectivist subjects were consistently higher
than the data from the individualist subjects. Thus, again, the general pattern of findings
suggests that the curves can be replicated and reflect cultural differences in the perception of
social behavior consistent with the theoretical framework of the Appendix.

42. Conclusion