Variations in collectivism and individualism by ingroup and culture: Confirmatory factor analysis (original) (raw)

Abstract

Five models of collectivism and individualism, which varied by ingroup and measurement specification, 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 behavior (K~itqiba~i & Berry, 1989). However, finding the best ways to represent or organize cross-cultural data is a difficult task. Collectivism and individualism have been proposed as possible underlying variables (Triandis, 1995). Various conceptions of collectivism and individualism have been the focus of extensive research in the 15 years since Hofstede (1980) identified these constructs as opposite poles of a value dimension that differentiates world cultures. Features associated with collectivism include being concerned with the ingroup's fate and giving its goals priority over one's own; maintaining harmony, interdependence, and cooperation and avoiding open conflict within the ingroup; reciprocity among ingroup members, who are related in a network of interlocking responsibilities and obligations; self-definition in terms of one's ingroups; and distinguishing sharply between ingroups and outgroups. In contrast, features associated with individualism include having greater concern with personal than ingroup fate and giving personal goals priority over ingroup goals; feeling independent and emotionally detached from one's ingroups; accepting confrontations within ingroups; and defining the self independently of one's ingroups (Ho & Chiu, 1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Tri

Figures (9)

Figure 1, Model 1, with Collectivism—Individualism as one factor (latent variable). Factor loadings are next to arrows, and residual errors are in circles. *Significantly different from zero at p < .05. (TBKC = Triandis Behavior Kin Collectivism; YBKC = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Collectivism; TAKC = Triandis Attitude Kin Collectivism; HIKC = Hui INDCOL Kin Collectivism; TBNC = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Collectivism; TAOC = Triandis Attitudes Others Collectivism; TBKI = Triandis Behavior Kin Individual- ism; YBKI = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Individualism; HIKI = Hui INDCOL Kin Individualism; HINC = Hui INDCOL Nonkin Collectivism; TBNI = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Individualism; HINI = Hui IN- DCOL Nonkin Individualism; TBOI = Triandis Behavior Others Individualism; TAOI = Triandis Attitudes Others Individualism.)

Figure 2. Model 2, with Collectivism and Individualism as two separate factors. The factors’ intercorrela- tion is shown on the arc connecting them. *Significantly different from zero at p < .05. (TBKC = Triandis Behavior Kin Collectivism; YBKC = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Collectivism; TAKC = Triandis Attitude Kin Collectivism; HIKC = Hui INDCOL Kin Collectivism; TBNC = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Collectiv- ism; TAOC = Triandis Attitudes Others Collectivism; TBKI = Triandis Behavior Kin Individualism; YBKI = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Individualism; HIKI = Hui INDCOL Kin Individualism; HINC = Hui IN- DCOL Nonkin Collectivism; TBNI = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Individualism; HINI = Hui INDCOL Nonkin Individualism; TBOI = Triandis Behavior Others Individualism; TAOI = Triandis Attitudes Others Individualism.)

Figure 3. Model 3, with two factors: Kin and Nonkin/General Others. Collectivism-Individualism is treated as a single bipolar dimension within each referent group. *Significantly different from zero at p < .05.(TBKC = Triandis Behavior Kin Collectivism; YBKC = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Collectivism; TAKC = Triandis Attitude Kin Collectivism; HIKC = Hui INDCOL Kin Collectivism; TBNC = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Collectivism; TAOC = Triandis Attitudes Others Collectivism; TBKI = Triandis Behavior Kin Individualism; YBKI = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Individualism; HIKI = Hui INDCOL Kin Individualism; HINC = Hui INDCOL Nonkin Collectivism; TBNI = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Individualism; HINI = Hui INDCOL Nonkin Individualism; TBOI = Triandis Behavior Others Individualism; TAOI = Triandis Attitudes Others Individualism.)

Figure 4. Model 4, with four factors: Kin Collectivism, Kin Individualism, Nonkin Collectivism, and Nonkin Individualism. Nonkin factors include general others in this model. *Significantly different from zero at p < .05. tNot significantly different from —1.00 at p < .05. (TBKC = Triandis Behavior Kin Col- lectivism; YBKC = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Collectivism; TAKC = Triandis Attitude Kin Collectivism; HIKC = Hui INDCOL Kin Collectivism; TBNC = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Collectivism; TAOC = Tri- andis Attitudes Others Collectivism; TBKI = Triandis Behavior Kin Individualism; YBKI = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Individualism; HIKI = Hui INDCOL Kin Individualism; HINC = Hui INDCOL Nonkin Collectivism; TBNI = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Individualism; HINI = Hui INDCOL Nonkin Individu- alism; TBOI = Triandis Behavior Others Individualism; TAOI = Triandis Attitudes Others Individualism.)

Figure 5. Model 5, with three factors: Kin, Nonkin, and General Others. Collectivism—Individualism is treated as a single bipolar dimension within each referent group. *Significantly different from zero at p < 05. (TBKC = Triandis Behavior Kin Collectivism; YBKC = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Collectivism; TAKC = Triandis Attitude Kin Collectivism; HIKC = Hui INDCOL Kin Collectivism; TBNC = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Collectivism; TAOC = Triandis Attitudes Others Collectivism; TBKI = Triandis Behavior Kin Individualism; YBKI = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Individualism; HIKI = Hui INDCOL Kin Individualism; HINC = Hui INDCOL Nonkin Collectivism; TBNI = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Individualism; HINI = Hui INDCOL Nonkin Individualism; TBOI = Triandis Behavior Others Individualism; TAOI = Triandis Attitudes Others Individualism.)

‘Note. Means with different subscripts in each row are significantly different from each other at the .01 level by protected ¢ tests. TBKC = Triandis Behavior Kin Collectivism; YBKC = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Collectivism; TAKC = Triandis Attitude Kin Collectivism; TBKI = Triandis Behavior Kin Individualism; YBKI = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Individualism; HIKI = Hui INDCOL Kin Individualism; HIKC = Hui INDCOL Kin Collectivism; TBNC = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Collectivism; HINC = Hui INDCOL Nonkin Collectivism; TBNI = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Individualism; HINI = Hui {NDCOL Nonkin Individualism; TAOC = Triandis Attitudes Others Collectivism; TBOI = Triandis Behavior Others Individ- ualism; TAOI = Triandis Attitudes Others Individualism. Means and Standard Deviations for the Whole Sample and 1 Subsamples

Unstandardized Factor Loadings, Stacked Model 4 Note. TBKC = Triandis Behavior Kin Collectivism; YBKC = Yama- guchi Behavior Kin Collectivism; TAKC = Triandis Attitude Kin Col- lectivism; HIKC = Hui INDCOL Kin Collectivism; TBKI = Triandis Behavior Kin Individualism; YBKI = Yamaguchi Behavior Kin Indi- vidualism; HIKI = Hui INDCOL Kin Individualism; TBNC = Triandis Behavior Nonkin Collectivism; HINC = Hui INDCOL Nonkin Collec- tivism; TAOC = Triandis Attitudes Others Collectivism; TBNI = Tri- andis Behavior Nonkin Individualism; HINI = Hui INDCOL Nonkin Individualism; TBOI = Triandis Behavior Others Individualism; TAOI = Triandis Attitudes Others Individualism. * Sionificantly different from zero at p< .05.

Intercorrelations Among the Latent Variables for the Three Groups, Stacked Model 4 Note. Mean % variance is the mean squared intercorrelations for each group. KC = Kin Collectivism; K. = Kin Individualism; NC = Nonkin Collectivism; NI = Nonkin Individualism. * Significantly different from zero at p< .05. Not significantly different from — 1.00. Table 4

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (72)

1. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
2. Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Pa- dilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 9-25 ). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
3. Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. ( ! 987). Comparative stud- ies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 31, 491- 571.
4. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bochner, S. (1994). Cross-cultural differences in the self-concept: A test of Hofstede's individualism/collectivism distinction. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 273-283.
6. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
7. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8. Bond, M. H. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual varia- tion in multicultural studies of value: The Rokeach and Chinese value surveys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 1009- 1015.
9. Bond, M. H., & Cheung, T. (1983). College students' spontaneous self- concept: The effect of culture among respondents in Hong Kong, Ja- pan, and the United States. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 14, 153-171.
10. Brislin, R.W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.
11. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and writ- ten materials. In H.C. Triandis & H. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389--444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
12. Burt, R. S. (1973). Confirmatory factor-analytic structures and the the- ory construction process. Sociological Methods and Research, 2, 131-190.
13. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. ( 1981 ). Analyzing models with unob- served variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G. W. Bohrn- stedt & E. E Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues. (pp. 63-115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14. Cha, J. (1994). Aspects of individualism and collectivism in Korea. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. K~it~iba~i, S. C. Choi, &G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 137-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Chan, D. K. (1994). COLINDEX: A refinement of three collectivism measures. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. K~it~iba~i, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 200-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Choi, S. C., Kim U., & Choi, S. H. (1993). Indigenous analysis of col- lective representations: A Korean perspective. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 193-210 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and selfhood in Japan and the U.S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124-131.
18. Hayduk, L. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Es- sentials and advances. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Press.
19. Ho, D. Y. (1993). Relational orientation in Asian social psychology. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 240-259). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20. Ho, D. Y., & Chiu, C. (1994). Component ideas of individualism, col- lectivism, and social organization: An application in the study of Chi- nese culture. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. K~it~ibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 123-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Hofstede, G. ( 1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22. Hofstede, G. (1994). Foreword. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. K~itqi- ba §i, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. ix-xiv). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach's value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433.
24. Hsu, E L. K. ( 1971 ). Psychosocial homeostasis and jen: Conceptual tools for advancing psychological anthropology. American Anthropol- ogist, 73, 23-44.
25. Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism--collectivism. Jour- nal of Research on Personality, 22, 17-36.
26. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy- chology, 7, 225-248.
27. Jtreskog, K. G., & Strbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7:A guide to thepro- gram and applications ( 2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
28. K~it~iba~i, C. ( 1987 ). Individual and group loyalties: Are they com- patible? In C. K~it~ibasi (Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cul- tural psychology (pp. 94-103). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
29. K~itgiba §i, C. (1994). A critical appraisal of individualism and collec- tivism: Toward a new formulation. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. K~- itciba~i, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 52-65 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. K~it~iba~i, C., & Berry, J. W. (1989). Cross-cultural psychology: Cur- rent research and trends. AnnualReview of Psychology, 40, 493-531.
31. Kashima, Y. (1987). Conceptions of person: Implications in individu- alism-collectivism research. In C. K~itqiba §i (Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 104-112). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
32. Kihlstrom, J. E, & Klein, S. B. (1994). The self as a knowledge struc- ture.
33. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cog- nition. Vol. 1: Basic processes (2rid ed:, pp. 153-208 ). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
34. Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarifica- tion and elaboration. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. K~itqiba §i, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kfi~it~iba~i, C., Choi, S.C., & Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and appli- cations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H., L. K. & Gerton, J. ( 1993 ). Psychologi- cal impact ofbiculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bul- letin, 114, 395--412.
37. Leung, K. (1989). Cross-cultural differences: Individual-level vs. cul- ture-level analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 703-719.
38. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions of cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 133-151.
39. Linville, P., & Carlston, D. (1994). Social cognition of the self. In P. G. Devine, D. L. Hamilton, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Social cognition: Impact on social psychology (pp. 143-193). San Diego, CA: Aca- demic Press.
40. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. ( 1991 ). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
41. McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. ( 1981 ). The spontaneous self-con- cept as affected by personal distinctiveness. In M. D. Lynch, A. A. Norem-Hebeisen, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Self-concept: Advances in theory and research (pp. 147-172). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
42. Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 45-82.
43. Miller, J. G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the morality of caring: Indi- vidually oriented versus duty-based interpersonal moral codes. Cross Cultural Research, 28, 3-39.
44. Miller, J. G., Bersoff, D. M., & Harwood, R. L. (1990). Perceptions of social responsibility in India and the United States: Moral impera- tives or personal decisions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 58, 33-47.
45. Mishra, R. C. (1994). Individualist and collectivist orientations across generations. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. K~it~iba~i, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 225-238 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. Rhee, E., Uleman, J. S., Lee, H. K., & Roman, R. J. ( 1995 ). Spontane- ous self-descriptions and ethnic identities in individualistic and col- lectivistic cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 142-152.
47. Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-collectivism: Critique and pro- posed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139- 157.
48. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. K~l~itqi- ba §i, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: The- ory, method, and applications (pp. 85-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 53, 550-562.
50. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural repli- cations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.
51. Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. ( 1982 ). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally? In A. Marsella & G. White (Eds.), Cultural conceptions of mental health and therapy (pp. 97-137). New York: Reidel.
52. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interde- pendent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
53. Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1994). Individualism in a collectivist cul- ture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. K~it~iba~i, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and col lectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 123-136). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Sinha, J. B., & Verma, J. (1987). Structure of collectivism. In C. K~it~i- basi (Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 123-129). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
55. Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. ( 1991 ). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655.
56. Triandis, H. C. (1989a). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motiva- tion: Cross-culturalperspectives (pp. 41 -133 ). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
57. Triandis, H. C. (1989b). The self and social behavior in differing cul- tural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
58. Triandis, H. C. ( 1991 ). Manual of instruments for the study of allocen- trism or collectivism and idiocentrism or individualism. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois.
59. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kim, H. C. Tri- andis, C. K~it~iba §i, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 41-51 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
61. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C. H., Marin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B. P., Verma, J., Spangenberg, J., Touzard, H., & de Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of the etics aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 257-268.
62. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 54, 323-338.
63. Triandis, H. C., Kashima, Y., Shimada, E., & Villareal, M. (1986). Ac- culturation indices as a means of confirming cultural differences. In- ternational Journal of Psychology, 21, 43-70.
64. Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., Betancourt, H., Iwao, S., Leung, K., Sa- lazar, J. M., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B. P., Touzard, H., & Zaleski, Z. (1993). An etic-emic analysis of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 366-383.
65. Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.
66. Verma, J. ( 1985 ). The ingroup and its relevance to individual behavior: A study of collectivism and individualism. Psychologia, 28, 173-181.
67. Watkins, D. (1989). The role of confirmatory factor analysis in cross- cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 685-701.
68. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. E, & Summers, G. E (1977). As- sessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1977 (pp. 84-136 ). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
69. Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-individ- ualism in everyday social life: The middle kingdom and the melting pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 57, 79-86.
70. Yamaguchi, S. (1990). Personality and cognitive correlates of collectiv- ism among the Japanese. Validation of collectivism scale. Unpub- lished manuscript.
71. Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. K~itqiba~i, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. ! 57-174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72. Yang, K. S. ( 198 t ). Social orientation and individual modernity among Chinese students in Taiwan. Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 159- 170. (Appendix follows on next page)