USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Measuring culture

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Measuring culture the development of a multidimensional culture scale
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Khoury, Haitham A
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Individualism
Collectivism
Multi-dimensional
Factor analysis
Culture
Cross-cultural
Scale development
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Masters -- USF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: Fundamental to the debate of culture and its impact is the identification of the dimensions that comprise it. The impact of culture as an explanatory variable can be found in various social, scientific, and economic arenas, such as social perception, economic development, and the organization of industries and companies. By identifying and measuring these dimensions, researchers can then organize cultures empirically and develop complex descriptions of various cultures. The study aimed to test the structure of the dimensions proposed by Ho and Chiu (1994) by means of scale development. Test-item writers involved psychology graduate students of various nationalities with the purpose of addressing reliability issues of previous measures by virtue of increased content breadth. The study also aimed to investigate the notion that cultural tendencies vary by dimension across geographical regions. Phase-I factor analysis results indicated that a 5-factor solution (responsibility, affiliation, social welfare, religion, and achievement) should be retained. Phase-II involved administering the scale to an international and American student sample that formed the basis for group comparisons. The results for the group comparisons were illuminating, providing evidence for the conceptualization of individualism and collectivism as worldviews and that the groups varied in their worldview depending on the pertinent dimension being measured. Implications for organizational research are discussed within the framework of linking individualism and collectivism to workplace variables. This study hopes to spur further empirical research in the area to catch up with the progressing theoretical development through expanded cultural dimensions, theory refinement, determining the process(es) by which cultural factors are linked to work behaviors, and uncover the various areas of applicability and research.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2006.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Haitham A. Khoury.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 81 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001914242
oclc - 175274930
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001741
usfldc handle - e14.1741
System ID:
SFS0026059:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001914242
003 fts
005 20071019141927.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071019s2006 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001741
040
FHM
c FHM
035
(OCoLC)175274930
049
FHMM
090
BF121 (ONLINE)
1 100
Khoury, Haitham A.
0 245
Measuring culture :
b the development of a multidimensional culture scale
h [electronic resource] /
by Haitham A. Khoury.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2006.
3 520
ABSTRACT: Fundamental to the debate of culture and its impact is the identification of the dimensions that comprise it. The impact of culture as an explanatory variable can be found in various social, scientific, and economic arenas, such as social perception, economic development, and the organization of industries and companies. By identifying and measuring these dimensions, researchers can then organize cultures empirically and develop complex descriptions of various cultures. The study aimed to test the structure of the dimensions proposed by Ho and Chiu (1994) by means of scale development. Test-item writers involved psychology graduate students of various nationalities with the purpose of addressing reliability issues of previous measures by virtue of increased content breadth. The study also aimed to investigate the notion that cultural tendencies vary by dimension across geographical regions. Phase-I factor analysis results indicated that a 5-factor solution (responsibility, affiliation, social welfare, religion, and achievement) should be retained. Phase-II involved administering the scale to an international and American student sample that formed the basis for group comparisons. The results for the group comparisons were illuminating, providing evidence for the conceptualization of individualism and collectivism as worldviews and that the groups varied in their worldview depending on the pertinent dimension being measured. Implications for organizational research are discussed within the framework of linking individualism and collectivism to workplace variables. This study hopes to spur further empirical research in the area to catch up with the progressing theoretical development through expanded cultural dimensions, theory refinement, determining the process(es) by which cultural factors are linked to work behaviors, and uncover the various areas of applicability and research.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2006.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 81 pages.
590
Adviser: Paul E. Spector, Ph.D.
653
Individualism.
Collectivism.
Multi-dimensional.
Factor analysis.
Culture.
Cross-cultural.
Scale development.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1741



PAGE 1

Measuring Culture: The Development of a Multidimensional Culture Scale by Haitham A. Khoury A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Paul E. Spector, Ph.D. Joseph A. Vandello, Ph.D. Marcie Finklestein, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 14, 2006 Keywords: individualism, collectivism, multi-di mensional, factor analysis, culture, crosscultural, scale development Copyright 2006, Haitham A. Khoury

PAGE 2

Dedication To my parents, Ameed and Gloria, and my brothers, Wael and Walid, who offered me unconditional love and support throu ghout the course of this journey.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments I would like to thank my major professor and advisor, Dr. Paul Spector for his careful guidance, counsel, and deep considerati on all through the cour se of this study. To my dear friends near and far, you gave me your support and a liste ning ear during this, I thank you.

PAGE 4

iv Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. ..viii Abstract....................................................................................................................... .......ix Introduction................................................................................................................... .......1 Overview..................................................................................................................1 Measuring Individualism and Collectivism.............................................................3 Hofstede’s Individualism/Collectivism.................................................3 Triandis’ Individualism/Collectivism....................................................4 Definition of the Self..............................................................5 Structure of Goals...................................................................5 Emphasis on Norms versus Attitudes.....................................6 Emphasis on Relatedness versus rationality............................6 Schwartz’s Individualism/Collectivism..................................................7 Hui’s INDividualism-COLlectivism (INDCOL)....................................8 Colleagues and friends/supportive exchange (CF)..................8 Parents/consultation and sharing (PA).....................................8 Kin and neighbors/susceptibility to influence (KN)................8 Parents and spouse/distinctiven ess of personal identity (PS)..9 Neighbor/social isolation (NE)................................................9 Matsumoto et al.’s (1997) ICIAI...........................................................9 Methodological Concerns.......................................................................................10

PAGE 5

v Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism.................................................................15 Responsibility...................................................................................................... ...15 Ethical-legal Responsibility..................................................................15 Consequences of Actions......................................................................16 Autonomy/Conformity............................................................................................16 Self-direction/Conformity.....................................................................16 Right to Privacy....................................................................................16 Personal Privacy.................................................................................. ..16 Affiliation...............................................................................................16 Self-reliance/Interdependence................................................................................17 Self-reliance/Interdependence................................................................17 Individual/Group Interests.....................................................................17 Security .................................................................................................17 Economic Individualism/Collectivism...................................................17 Political Individualism/Collectivism.....................................................18 Relig ious Individualism/Collectivism...................................................18 Values............................................................................................................. .......18 Value of the Individual/Group..............................................................18 Human Development............................................................................18 Individualist/Uniformity.......................................................................18 Identity..................................................................................................19 Achievement........................................................................................................ ..19 Individual/Group Effort........................................................................19

PAGE 6

vi Competition/Cooperation......................................................................19 The Current Study.............................................................................................................. 19 Phase I............................................................................................................ ....................22 Method I........................................................................................................... ......22 Participants...........................................................................................22 Measures..............................................................................................22 Multidimensional Culture Scale (MCS)............................22 Culture Orientation Scale (COS).......................................23 Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994 (VSM 94).............24 Procedure.............................................................................................25 Results and Discussion I........................................................................................25 Scale and Item Descriptives and Reliabilities......................................26 Factor Solution.....................................................................................27 Scale Inter-correlations........................................................................32 Phase II........................................................................................................... ....................35 Method II.......................................................................................................... .....35 Participants...........................................................................................35 Measures..............................................................................................37 Multidimensional Culture Scale (MCS)............................37 Procedure........................................................................................ .....37 Results II......................................................................................................... .......38 Scale and Item Descriptives and Reliabilities......................................38 Scale Inter-correlations........................................................................39

PAGE 7

vii Group Comparisons.............................................................................42 Discussion II...................................................................................................... ....46 Implications..........................................................................................46 Study Limitations.................................................................................50 Future Directions.................................................................................50 References..................................................................................................................... .....53 Appendices..................................................................................................................... ....57 Appendix A: Multidimensional Cultu re Scale Initial Item Pool...........................58 Appendix B: Culture Orientation Scale.................................................................73 Appendix C: Values Survey Module.....................................................................75 Appendix D: Non-Significant Post-Hoc Group Comparisons...............................81

PAGE 8

viii List of Tables Table 1 Phase-I Scale Descriptives and Reliability.......................................................26 Table 2 Scale Items a nd Rotated Factor Loadings.........................................................28 Table 3 Phase-I Correlation Matrix...............................................................................34 Table 4 Phase-II Partic ipant Geographical Distribution................................................36 Table 5 Phase-II Scale Descriptives and Reliability......................................................38 Table 6 Phase-II Correlation Matrix..............................................................................41 Table 7 MCS Significant Post-Hoc Group Comparisons..............................................43 Table 8 COS Post-Hoc Group Comparisons.................................................................44 Table 9 ANOVA Results...............................................................................................45 Table 10 Non-Significant Post-Hoc Group Comparisons...............................................81

PAGE 9

ix Measuring Culture: The Development Of A Multidimensional Culture Scale Haitham A. Khoury ABSTRACT Fundamental to the debate of cu lture and its impact is the id entification of the dimensions that comprise it. The impact of culture as an explanatory variable can be found in various social, scientific, and economic arenas, such as social perception, economic development, and the organization of industries and comp anies. By identifying and measuring these dimensions, researchers can then organize cultures empirically and develop complex descriptions of various cultures. The study aime d to test the structur e of the dimensions proposed by Ho and Chiu (1994) by means of scale development. Test-item writers involved psychology graduate students of vari ous nationalities w ith the purpose of addressing reliability issues of previous meas ures by virtue of incr eased content breadth. The study also aimed to investigate the notion that cultural tendencies vary by dimension across geographical regions. Phase-I factor an alysis results indicated that a 5-factor solution ( responsibility, affiliation, social welfare, religion, and achievement ) should be retained. Phase-II involved administering the scale to an international and American student sample that formed the basis for group comparisons. The results for the group comparisons were illuminating, providing evidence for the con ceptualization of individualism and collectivism as worldview s and that the groups varied in their worldview depending on the pertinent dime nsion being measured. Implications for organizational research are di scussed within the framework of linking individualism and

PAGE 10

x collectivism to workplace variab les. This study hopes to spur further empirical research in the area to catch up with the progressi ng theoretical developm ent through expanded cultural dimensions, theory refinement, de termining the process(es) by which cultural factors are linked to work behaviors, and unc over the various areas of applicability and research.

PAGE 11

1 Introduction Overview Hofstede’s seminal work on the conceptu alization of culture into meaningful dimensions (1980, 1984) has led to a burgeoni ng in the study of culture and has been gaining a larger role among psychologists in terested in cross-cultural differences and similarities. The rise in the popularity of cross-cultural psychology underlies the importance of defining and conceptualizing cult ure in a language that is meaningful and into dimensions that can be measured properly. Culture in its broadest sense is compri sed of the shared values, beliefs, norms, customs, and behaviors that are held by members of a society and is transmitted from generation to generation through learning. As su ch, the definition of culture is vague and does not provide a clear, working construct for researchers who seek to discern how cultures and societies differ and how to orga nize them. The impact of culture as an explanatory variable can be f ound in various social, scientif ic, and economic arenas, such as social perception, economic development, and the organization of industries and companies (Triandis, 1994). Fundamental to th e debate of culture and its impact is the identification of the dimensions that comp rise it. By identifying and measuring these dimensions, researchers can then organize cultures empirically and develop complex descriptions of various cultures (Triandi s, Bontempo, Betancourt, Bond, Leung, Brenes, Georgas, Hui, Marin, Setiadi, Sinha, Ve rma, Spangenberg, Touzard, & De Montmollin, 1986).

PAGE 12

2 Arguably the most researched and studied cultural dimension in cross-cultural psychology is that of individualism/collectiv ism (I/C). Beginning in the 1980s, I/C was identified as one of the major themes in cross-cultural social and organizational psychology (Triandis, Chen, Chan, 1998). Ho fstede (1980) first used the term individualism to refer to societies that placed importance on the individual, the individual’s interests, and th e individual’s achievement, which prevail over those of the group’s. In contrast, collectivism describes societies that place emphasis and importance on the group and the group’s interests and ach ievements. The US and Europe have been systematically labeled and assumed to be the torch bearers of indivi dualism, whereas East Asian countries – China being th e quintessential example – to be especially low (high) on individualism (collectivism), although systema tic tests for this assumption are few and are based on early research by Hofstede (Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier, 2002). This early organization of cultures and countries s purred the development of many hypotheses that involved the relationshi p between culture and various social behavior and phenomena (Matsumoto, We issman, Preston, Brown, & Kupperbusch, 1997). Hofstede’s I/C constructs provided fuel to the cultur al psychology field by presenting a structure and general theoretica l framework within which the concept of culture could be properly operationalized. Furthe r, I/C demonstrated that it is a much more coherent construct that is also an empirically testable dimension of cultural variation (Bond, 1994). Whereas Hofstede considers I/C to be a single dimension, others like Triandis consider it multidimensional. Triandis’ (1995) review of culture focuses on the specific manifestations of individualism and collectivism; themselves defined as cultural

PAGE 13

3 syndromes, and highlighting thei r particular characteristics. A cultural syndrome is in essence a collection of beliefs, attitudes, norms, roles, and va lues that are related through a common theme. The themes serve the purpose of organizing these characteristics, and are influenced by their geographical location. As such, one would fi nd variations in the manifestation of the syndromes with the variation in geographi cal location. Triandis speculated that individualism and collectivism, as cultural syndromes, had four different, universal themes, which Triandis and other researchers later on termed dimensions. Accordingly, societies could be organized and distinguished based on these dimensions. Measuring Individualism and Collectivism Hofstede’s Individualism/Collectivism According to Hofstede (1994) indivi dualism is defined as the opposite of collectivism – that they formed a single continuu m. That is to say individual’s can either be high on individualism or collectivism, but not both. More specifi cally, individualism in a particular society is de fined by the ties between individu als in that society. A person is expected primarily to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Hofstede (1997) describes healthy individua lists as those who are not dependent on a group, who think of themselves in terms of “I”. Each indivi dual’s personal identity is therefore defined in terms of individual ch aracteristics. Individua list cultures value speaking one’s mind, where expressing truthfully how one feels is hi ghly regarded, even if it leads to confrontation. In essence, it is an individual’s focus on rights over duties, one’s concern for oneself and immediate fa mily, one’s focus on autonomy and selffulfillment, and the basing of one’s identity on one’s personal accomplishments.

PAGE 14

4 Collectivism in contrast defines a society in which people are basically integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which pr otect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. Individuals learn to think of themselves in terms of “we”, su ch that their personal identities derive se curity and protection from belongi ng to the “we” group. Collectivist cultures value the maintenance of harmony th rough a social contact that extends into various aspects of one’s life such as school and the workplace. Triandis’ Individualism/Collectivism In terms of organizing cultures into eith er individualism or collectivism, Triandis (1995) introduces two attrib utes that further different iate cultures according to individualism and collectivism which he calls ho rizontal and vertical. Horizontal refers to a sense of cohesion among members, that th e members are equal w ithin their group, and have a feeling of oneness w ith other members of the gr oup. The horizontal dimension emphasizes that people are similar in status. Vertical, on the other ha nd, refers to sense of service to the group, where th e members sacrifice for the benefit of the group. The ranking of members in the group has precedence, and there is an accep tance of inequality and of privileges of those who rank higher. The four dimensions therefore are: (a) horizontal individualism where the individual is considered of equal status as others, but maintains an autonomous sense of the self (b) horizontal co llectivism where the individual is also considered of equal status, but is also in terdependent – the self merges with the members of the in-group and individu als see themselves as being the same as others, (c) vertical individualis m considers an autonomous self coupled with an expected inequality between people, where individuals see each other as different, and (d) vertical collectivism, where the self is defined in terms of the in-group while acknowledging that

PAGE 15

5 some members have more status than others thus group members are different from each other. Triandis (1995) also identified four defini ng attributes or dimensions that make up individualism and collectivism: Definition of the self, structure of goals, emphasis on norms versus attitudes, and emphasis on relatedness versus rationality. Definition of the self: The defining aspect that diffe rentiates individualists from collectivists is how broad or narrow the definition of the self is. While individualists view the self as independent and autonomous, co llectivists regard the self as being interdependent with other members of the gr oup. Such belief also en tails the sharing of resources, much like what happens in fam ilies, whereas individualists hold that the sharing of resources is based on indivi dual decisions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Reykowski, 1994). Further, individualists are describe d as being more concerned with personal success while collec tivists focus on the success of their group. Linked to this concept of success is the focus of individualists on personality, ability, and attitude versus collectivists’ focus on relationships, roles, and norms. Such definitions of the self are also reflected in other aspects of the individual’s daily life, such as the degree of sharing between members of a society and the extent that members conforming to the norms of the society. Structure of goals: The second dimension pertains to differences in how societies relate to personal and societal/communal goals. More specifically, the dimension concerns the extent to which personal goa ls align with communa l goals. Individualists place priority on personal goals, while communal goals supersede personal goals in collectivist cultures (S chwartz, 1994). In other words, for collectivists, personal goals

PAGE 16

6 should be highly compatible with the group’s goals, whereas for individualists, personal goals do not necessarily have to be compa tible with the group’s goals (Triandis, 1988, 1990) When personal goals are incompatible w ith group goals, collectivists tend to give priority to the group’s goal while individualists’ persona l goals supersede the group’s goals. Emphasis on norms versus attitudes: Cognitions guide much of social and personal behavior, and constitute the third dimension outlined by Triandis. Specifically, individualistic cultures hold cognitions that focus primarily on attitudes, personal needs, contracts, and perceived rights. In other words, the focus of thought is on the individual. Social behavior that is guided primarily by a focus on norms, duties, and obligations, in addition to attitudes and personal needs, is characteristic of collectivistic cultures (Davidson, Jaccard, Triandis, Morales, & Di az-Guerrero, 1976). The motivation to pay close attention to the norms of the in-group over personal needs for co llectivists is that their well-being depends on fitting in and ha ving good relationships with the in-group, while for individualists it depends on satisfaction with the self, and the emotions associated with self-satis faction (Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis, 1998). Finally, collectivists tend to be more formal and to de pend on rules for social behavior to a greater extent than do individualists and see less of a link between attitudes and behavior than do individualists (Kashima, Sieg el, Tanaka, & Kashima, 1992). Emphasis on relatedness versus rationality: Finally, the fourth dimension concerns the degree of emphasis on relationships. Kim, Triandis, K itiba i, Choi, and Yoon (1994) found that individual istic cultures tend to rationally analyze the pros and cons of maintaining a relations hip, where rationality refers to the weighing of the costs

PAGE 17

7 and benefits of rela tionships (Kim, 1994). On the other hand, co llectivistic cultures emphasize unconditional relatedness, underscoring re lationships and giving priority to the needs of others despite the possibil ity that they are disadvantageous. Triandis (1995) further defined individua lism and collectivism at the individual level as idiocentric and allocentric. Idiocentric refers to individuals who seek personal gains and interests, while allocentric defines individuals who see thei r interests and goals as aligned with the group ’s interests and goals. Schwartz’s Individualism/Collectivism Schwartz (1990) defined individualistic societies as thos e that focused on centralizing the individual a nd peripheralizing the social group. Individuals belong to narrow groups, with any obligations and expect ations based on that membership focused on achievement of personal status. The emphasis is more on the achievement of one’s personal goals and uniqueness. Collectivists according to Schwartz (1990) are characterized by obligations to the group, ascr ibed statuses, and st rong obligations and expectations based on those statuses. The main focus or emphasis is on the social units within which individuals belong to that emphasize a common fate, goals, and values. At the individual level, Schwartz (1996) proposed a structure of values consisting of 10 types: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-dir ection, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and securit y. In addition, Schwartz’s value structure had two features: circularity and value prio rities. The circular feature involves the compatibility of pursuing adjacent values and the incompatibility of pursuing diametrically opposite values, which generates conflict within the individual. Schwartz also emphasizes value prioritie s as meaningful predictors of social behavior, whereby

PAGE 18

8 individuals’ ranking of the rela tive importance of a value over the other values allow for robust hypotheses generation. Hui’s INDividualism-COLlectivism (INDCOL) Hui (1998) developed the INDCOL scale based on the assumption that people’s values, specifically people’s collectivistic values, were target-specific. The implication is that people’s behaviors would vary depending on the target of interaction in such a way that the closer the target is to the person, the more collectiv istic the behaviors shown are. Hui (1988) originally specified six relevant target groups (c orresponding to six subscales in the INDCOL scale): spouse, parents, kin, neighbors, friends, and colleagues, and these subscales would theoretically distinguish betw een collectivist tendencies. Research into the factor structure of the INDCOL (Hui a nd Yee, 1994) could not support or confirm the six factor solution, but a five factor solution emerged that comprised of the following: Colleagues and friends/supportive exchange (CF): Items loading on this factor referred to issues of intimacy, sharing, a nd interdependence among work colleagues and friends. Items also describe the (un)willingness of individuals to have fun or seek advice from friends. Parents/consultation and sharing (PA): Items loading on this factor tapped into a person’s readiness to discuss and consult with parents on personal i ssues, as well as the willingness with which one shares ideas, knowle dge, and material resources with parents. Kin and neighbors/susceptibili ty to influence (KN): Items loading on this factor referred to the influence exerted by relative s, kin and neighbors that influence an individual’s attitudes, an d is opposed by a “none of your business” attitude.

PAGE 19

9 Parents and spouse/distinctivene ss of personal identity (PS): Items loading on this factor looked at the degree of differentiation between the individual and parents, with an emphasis on communal relationships a nd shared honors between the two. Neighbor/social isolation (NE): Items loading on this factor describe the casual relationships (or lack thereof) an individual has with neighbors. Matsumoto et al.’s (1997) ICIAI Matsumoto et al. (1997) developed the Individualism-Collectivism Interpersonal Assessment Inventory (ICIAI) based on defining I-C in terms of values that applied to specific relationships and interpersonal inte ractions. Similar in many ways to Hui’s INDCOL, the ICIAI differs in th at the items are not specific to the collective or target rated, but instead could be us ed across social relationshi ps. The four social groups identified by Matsumoto et. al. were: famil y, close friends, colleague s, and strangers. The scale includes 25 items that are rated twice by respondents, once as values on a 7-pt. Likert scale, and another time as behaviors in terms of the frequency with which someone engages in each of the behaviors. Finally, Oyserman et al’s (2000) review of the last 20 years of research in individualism and collectivism identified a common theme for each: Individualism is mostly concerned with valuing personal i ndependence, while collectivism focused on a sense of obligation and duty to one’s in -group. Also identified were the common dimensions that were assesse d in individualism-collectivis m scales that each factor encompassed. For individualism, the seven di mensions assessed were: independence, goals, competition, uniqueness, privacy, self -knowledge, and direct communication. The

PAGE 20

10 eight dimensions identified for collectivis m were: relatedness, belonging, duty, harmony, advice, context, hierarchy, and group. Methodological Concerns The organizing concept of individua lism/collectivism in cross-cultural psychology has become a universal one, with individualism and collectivism describing a bipolar construct. The initial idea was that cultures and societies could (and were) categorized into one of those poles (Ho & Chiu, 1994) and reference thus far to I/C cultures gives the impression that members of a particular so ciety are uniformly individualist or collectivist. Like many ot her psychological constr ucts, individualism and collectivism have been defined and conceptua lized in terms of dichotomies. While this method provides an expedient form of character izing societies and cultu res, it is also an oversimplified way of describing. There is a te ndency to explain complex social realities in simplified terms, glossing over the nuances of cultures in exchange for stereotypical explanations. This can result in pigeonholi ng of cultures and societies into broad yet simplified categories, and the subtle differe nces and fine distinctions that make up societies are missed. The problem with this co nceptualization is that it has led to an oversimplification of the constructs, and most importantly, of the culture or society being described. The focus shifts towards simplified fixed impressions of groups rather than a representation of their complex ities (Sinha & Tripathi, 1994). Recent trends in cross-cultural research have focused on exploring the complexity and multidimensionality of I/C. The construct of I/C is seen as two distinct constructs, where “one is not reducible simply to the antithesis of the other” (Ho & Chiu, 1994, p. 138). It is argued that indivi dualism and collectivism should be conceptualized as two

PAGE 21

11 multidimensional constructs, and recent discussion in the literature has noted that individualism and collectivism are likely to be multidimensional rather than polar opposites, with individualist and collectivist te ndencies both coexisting within individuals (Ayyash-Abdo, 2001). It seems clear that within a given culture both individualist and collectivist beliefs are likely to be held and re jected. Schwartz (1990) found th at individualist or collectivist beliefs within a culture do not necessarily make up a coherent constellation. That is, within either the individualis t or collectivist dimension, so me of the components can be affirmed while the rest are negated. Although they’ve been viewed as opposite s, the literature points to a more accurate view of the two concepts as being worldviews that differ in the issues they make salient. Past literature has moved in the dire ction of a possible synt hesis of individualist and collectivist dimensions. Within one cultu re, both orientations can be valued to varying degrees. That is, one or ientation may dominate or be more characteristic of a group, but not to the point of negating the w eaker of the two. Furthermore, one should underscore how misleading it is at the individual level of an alysis to classify people indiscriminately as individualist or collectivist, and at the cultural le vel to characterize a society globally as either indi vidualist or collectivist. Rather it seems more appropriate to describe a culture as predominantly individua list or collectivist while specifying further on how the attributes or dimensions a pply to this culture (Ho & Chiu, 1994). The debate on the conceptualization of individualism and collectivism is also fueled by the extensive research on i ndividualism and collectivism involving a comparison of US and Asian (predominantly Chinese) samples and the development of

PAGE 22

12 scales that are drawn from these societies. This approach does not represent the fullness of the individualism and collectivism construct with respect to facets of it, because it is specific to two cultures that are posited on oppos ite ends. Other cultur es would differ also in a ranking of these facets, and which are more important for that particular society. According to Ayyash-Abdo (2001), since both di mensions are theorized to exist in one society, it seems more appropriate to create an I/C scale that encompasses multiple facets, upon which cultures or societies can be compared. From a methodological perspective, it appear s that it is necessary to consider the multidimensionality of the I/C construct in cross-cultural research, where the focus should be on recognizing and identifying th e components of this construct and on which construct/facets do the differences exist (H o & Chiu, 1994). How the two orientations interact and the conditions need ed for them to come out would provide great insight into the culture itself. What seems to be taking pla ce is the coexistence of distinct elements in one society. The trend appears to be that so cieties/individuals e nd up compartmentalizing different facets of their culture, with diffe rent sets of thoughts and beliefs coexisting alongside one another (S inha & Tripathi, 1994). Beyond characterizing cultures as being relati vely individualistic or collectivistic, the measurement of individualism and collectiv ism is valuable at the individual level as well. Estimates of the proportion of th e population that are characterized as individualistic or collectivistic can be made based on individual measurement (Matsumoto et. al., 1997). Furthermore, empi rical support can be generated in reference to different samples, negating the need fo r assuming that the group composition is only one way or the other.

PAGE 23

13 Probably the strongest indication that i ndividualism and collectivism do not form a single, bipolar dimension is the lack of empirical support indicating that they are equally and inversely related to one another. Rather, indi vidualism and collectivism can be multidimensional and non-polar. Ho and Chiu (1994) found that both individualist and collectivist attributes can be displayed on separate dimensions, contradicting the contention of polarity and providing support for the existence of both attributes. With properly defining individualism and collectivism comes the necessity of measuring them. Hofsetede’s (1994) measur e is designed to assess individualism and collectivism at the cultural level, while Scwh artz’s Value Scale (1994) measures cultural values at the individual level. The main li mitation with any cultural scale has been its reliability and consequent validity – where the measures have failed to achieve acceptable levels (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, Gelfa nd, 1995). Hofstede’s VSM 94 yielded a .52 mean coefficient alpha (Spector, Cooper, Sp arks, Bernin, Bssing, Dewe, Lu, Miller, de Moraes, O’Driscoll, Pagon, Pitariu, Poelma ns, Radhakrishnan, Russinova, Salamatov, Salgado, Sanchez, Shima, Siu, Stora, Teichmann, Theorell, Vlerick, Westman, Widerszal-Bazyl, Wong, & Yu, 2001) while Hu i and Yee (1994) report Cronbach alphas for the INDCOL scale ranging from .38 to .73 for 5 subscales. Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) provided evidence for the importance of having reliable measures of individualism and collectivism in their meta analysis, where it was shown that effect sizes and differences between countries chan ge dramatically when comparing reliable and unreliable measures. What has plagued the measurement of th e I/C construct is the broadness of the construct on the one hand such that simple, culture-level measures cannot cover very well

PAGE 24

14 thus reducing their reliability; while on th e other hand specific measures focusing on one aspect of culture are too cons tricting thus reducing their cont ent validity. Several authors, particularly Cronbach (1990) and Triandis (2001) have discussed the bandwidth vs. fidelity quandary concluding that more valid and profitable information can be had when most or all aspects of a c onstruct are roughly measured ra ther than focusing on and accurately measuring one or two aspects of a construct. In other words, a measure that covers the whole theoretical ba ndwidth of a construct will fare better, particularly with a large sample. As mentioned earlier, individualism and collectivism are no longer thought of as one construct, occupying oppos ite ends of the spectrum. Instead, individualism and collectivism can be construed as two distinct, multidimensional worldviews composed of several components, and it’s not contradict ory to hold both views at the same time. Triandis and Gelfand (1998) ar gued that there are different kinds of individualism and collectivism, and that further theoretical and empirical support for add itional attributes is needed. While individualism and collectivism are help ful in describing the different ways in which cultures differ, as it stands, they are also too broadly de fined and are too often used to explain almost any cultural or cross cultural difference (Oyserman, Kemmerlmeier, & Coon, 2002). Perhaps it is mo re appropriate to think of them as general cultural schemas or abstracted ways of making meaning of the world. To that end, there exists a need to develop a m easure that would reflect this shift in conceptualization.

PAGE 25

15 Dimensions of Indi vidualism-Collectivism A characterization of a particular cu lture can be found in the expressions, proverbs, and sayings that summarize vari ous experiences, and ar e passed from one generation to the next in the form of wisdom s. The popular sayings then come to form the general cultural beliefs that would guide the behaviors of the members of the society. Ho and Chiu (1994) content-analyzed popular Ch inese sayings to determine the degree to which they affirmed or negated the basic id eas of individualism and collectivism. The procedure entailed training judges in anal yzing over 2,000 popular sayings and then compiling and sorting them under either individu alism or collectivism. More specifically, sayings that expressed prescriptiv e or proscriptive beliefs were selected. The idea is that such beliefs promote actions and behaviors th at are acceptable and prohibits actions and behaviors that are considered undesirable. Th e final product resulted in the identification of 18 components that pertain to both indi vidualism and collectivism. The components were summarized into 5 main dimensions: Responsibility, Autonomy/Conformity, Selfreliance/Interdependence, Values, and Achiev ement. Following is a description of each dimension. Responsibility: Encompasses two components: Et hical-legal responsibility and consequences of actions. Ethical-legal responsibility: It pertains to who is held responsible for a member’s actions. More specifically, the individual is he ld responsible morally and/or legally for what he or she does in indivi dualist societies, while the group or others with whom the individual is associated with are also held responsible.

PAGE 26

16 Consequences of actions: It concerns who is affect ed by the member’s actions. In particular, the individual alone is affected in individualist societies, while in collectivist societies, the whole gro up or others with whom the actor is associated with are affected. Autonomy/conformity: Encompasses four components: selfdirection/conformity, right to priv acy, personal privacy, and affiliation. Self-direction/conformity: In individualists, it is de fined by a high degree of selfassertion, where the individual makes indepe ndent judgments and decisions, and is nonconformist insofar that the decisions a nd judgments made are motivated by the individual. Collectivist socie ties on the other hand promote c onforming to societal norms and decisions and judgments are ba sed on compliance to the group norms. Right to privacy: This component concerns th e notion of privacy, where in individualist societies an i ndividual maintains a private existence within the public domain, and is also afforded freedom from societal interference. On the other hand, the notion that the society as an entity is ab le and entitled to see and regulate what its members do and think, and possibly subject th em to public scrutiny is illustrative of collectivist societies. Personal privacy: Personal matters are kept priv ate in individualist societies, while in collectivist societies, personal ma tters may be made public, and the public has a larger role in that it is solicited for sympathy and to advocate justice. Affiliation: Preference for solitude and bei ng alone is characteristic of individualist societies, while the company of others is preferred more in collectivist societies.

PAGE 27

17 Self-reliance/in terdependence: Encompasses six components: Selfreliance/interdependence, individual /group interests, security, economic individualism/collectivism, political individualism/collectivism, and religious individualism/collectivism. Self-reliance/interdependence: This component deals with where the responsibility for the individual’s well-being li es. Individualist societies presume that the individual is responsible for his or her own welfare, based on his or her self-reliance. In contrast, for collectivist societies, well-b eing is based on interdependence and mutual help, with each individual’s welfare depe nding on the welfare of the group. The group also assumes the responsibility for the welfare of its members. Individual/group interests: This component involves the fulfillment of the individual’s needs and interests. More speci fically, it describes how actions are guided by self interests in individualist societies, while the fulfillment of obligations is the guiding force behind actions in collective societies. In other words, one’s actions are directed by the consideration of the group’s interests. Security: The notion of security in individualist soci eties is found in the individual’s strength, while collectives draw s ecurity from the group’s solidarity and integrity. Economic individualism/collectivism: The idea that an individual is rewarded based on his or her individual performance is i ndicative of individualist societies. Further, economic individualism denotes private ow nership of property. On the other hand, collectivist societies are primarily concerned with the sharing of wealth, and are more egalitarian in the sense that there is more public or communal ownership.

PAGE 28

18 Political individualism/collectivism: The nature of political systems in individualist societies is set up in such a manner as to circ umscribe control over to the individual, that is, the indivi dual’s rights are protected by la w and the system exists to satisfy individual needs. In collective societies, the political system is primarily set up to preserve and protect the collective, such as the state or political party. Members’ rights are considered secondary to those of the larger group. Religious individualism/collectivism: This value can also be summarized in terms of religiosity, where in i ndividualist societies the indi vidual does not need an intermediary, and religious beliefs are cons idered highly personal. Conversely, collective societies promote participation in group worshi p. In other words, membership in religious institutions is essential for the salvation of the group first and then the salvation of others. Values: Encompasses four components: va lue of the individual/group, human development, individuality/ uniformity, and identity. Value of the individual/group: This component depicts the intrinsic worth given to the individual or the group. In individualist societies, prim acy is given to the intrinsic worth and value of the individual, whereas in collective societies, precedence is given to the value of the collective or gr oup over that of the individual. Human development: The focus of development is on self-actualiza tion and selfrealization. In individualist societies, it is the developm ent and actualization of the individual to his or her fulle st potential, whereas more colle ctivist societies focus on the development and actualiza tion of the collective. Individuality/uniformity: The focus is on how and what dictates how a person is to behave and look. In individualist societies, value is placed on t hose who differentiate

PAGE 29

19 themselves from others, who seek to be have uniquely and individuate. Collectivist societies encourage members to be more uniform, and to emulate a single model. Identity: The source of a member’s identity dictates his or her individualist or collectivist inclination. An indivi dual’s identity that is defi ned by personal attributes and a self-concept is illustrative of individua lists, while an identity developed from a collective identity and define d by group membership is desc riptive of collectivists. Achievement: Encompasses two components: Individual/group effort and competition/cooperation. Individual/group effort: The focus of achievement in individualist societies is on independence, where single-handed efforts are rewarded and the emphasis is on the individual’s initiative. Convers ely, collectivists tend to do thi ngs together, and collective efforts are seen as superior. Competition/cooperation: The attainment of excelle nce and achieving one’s goals through competition is more descriptive of individualist societies, whereas goals and distinction are better achie ved through cooperation and c onformity in collectivist societies. The Current Study This study aims to develop a reliable measure of individualism and collectivism by looking at the various distributions of th e dimensions (and their components) that make them up, and to sample several cultures in the item writing task in order to better represent the fullness of the constructs. The crux of the issue is the identification of what constitutes culture – specifying the dimensions that describe it. Research in this area, as described earlier, has shifted

PAGE 30

20 from the idea of I/C as a single, bipolar c onstruct towards the noti on of defining I/C as a worldview or predilection. Culture is a hi ghly complex construct that cannot be condensed into one dimension, reducing its complexities into one simple dimension. Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) poi nt to the notion that it seems more reasonable to view societies as dealing w ith collective and indi vidual oriented value choices, where any given society is likely to have at leas t some representation of both individualistic and colle ctivistic worldviews. Both individualistic and collectivistic tendencies have been found to exist in individuals of different cultures. Additio nally, within each tendency, it has been found that individuals in one culture could rate a particular f acet or construct differently compared to another sample, while both can be described as being collectivistic (or individualistic). That is, two collectivistic cultures could differ in their ranking on these facets, indicating which facet(s ) is (are) more important for that particular society. Vandello and Cohen (1999) found similar patterns within a country. Their study looked at the U.S., which has consisten tly been characterized as being individua listic, and found variations in the way the dimension was expressed depending on the region studied. It seems, therefore, to be more appr opriate to develop a scale that would encompass several facets that define cultures and societies, and colle ct data that would then be used to compare these cultures and societies. By identifying and measuring these dimensions and facets, researchers can then organize cultures empirically and develop complex descriptions about them. The majority of existing I/C scales were developed in the U.S and China, where the items stemmed from one or both of these countries. While it may be that the items

PAGE 31

21 represented those particular cu ltures, they do not represent the fullness of individualism and collectivism with respect to their facets, because the items were specific to the two cultures that are posited on opposite ends. Th is study will focus on drawing items from various cultures by asking individuals of vari ous nationalities to writ e items that pertain to the identified dimensions and facets th at make up I/C. The method used to come up with the items for the scale also involved e fforts to prime item writers of their cultural values and beliefs, thus generating a divers e collection of items (Oyserman, Sakamoto, & Lauffer, 1998). Several reasons exist for creati ng a scale using such a procedure. First, it avoids the common pitfall of cross-cultural research that usually entails applying or transferring Western findings and measures to non-Western samples and countries. Second, having several nationalities write items ensures better covera ge of the construct domain by including different cultural perspect ives to a theoretically universal construct (Spector et. al, 2004). The goals of this study therefore are fourfo ld: First, it is expected that the five outlined dimensions built into the scale form five separate factors as proposed by Ho and Chiu (1994). Second, with increa sed breadth in the content do main of the constructs and more items, better reliabilities are expected. Third, the scale will moderately correlate with both the Triandis scal e and the Hofstede VSM 94. Finally, and possibly most interestingly, the scale intends to differe ntiate among different countries/regions showing how each varies across the I/C di mensions depending on their geographical origin.

PAGE 32

22 Phase-I Method I Participants The total number of participants in ph ase-I of the study was 206 University of South Florida undergraduate students draw n from the psychology subject pool. The sample mean age was 22.1 years (SD = 2.83), and consisted of 162 females (78.6%) and 44 males (21.4%). The reported ethnicities by the participan ts were as follows: 61.7% Caucasian, 13.1% African-American, 14.1% Hispanic, 2.9% Asian-American, 2.4% Middle-Eastern, and 1.9% other. Approximately 53% of respondents reported working 20 hours or less per week, 37% reported worki ng between 20 and 40 hours per week, and the rest worked more than 40 hours per week. As compensation for their participation in the study, all participants received extra credit for a psychology course. Measures Multidimensional Culture Scale (MCS): Culture was measured using 192 items developed for the purpose of validation. The initial measure was made up of 5 dimensions (18 facets) values, autonomy/c onformity, responsibility, achievement, and self-reliance/interdependence – discussed previously. To generate items for the dimensions, 13 psychology doctoral students from various national backgrounds were recruited. Each student was provi ded with clear and precise c onceptual definition of each dimension and asked to write items that refl ect that definition. The item writing panel included members from the following count ries: Barbados, China, Germany, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, the United States, and Venezuela. Also, item writers were

PAGE 33

23 provided with a general definition of individu alism and collectivism to provide direction for the items. The research on I/C has indicated that each construct can be conceptualized differently depending on the culture. That is, collectivism in one cultu re can be different from collectivism in another one; where collectivist cultures can manifest several of the same defining attributes while still displayi ng other culture-specific attributes (Singelis et. al, 1995; Triandis, 1995). Ther efore, getting as varied a perspective as possible would better cover the content domain and lead to better psyc hometric properties of the scale. The items were scored on a 5-point Li kert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The 192 items were even ly split in terms of “individualism” or “collectivism” worldviews, with high scores indicating individualism. Cultural Orientation Scale (COS) (Triandis and Gelfand, 1998) : This scale, like the original, intends to measure various beli efs and attitudes that express individualistic and collectivistic tendencies. Further, it also distinguishes cultures in terms of horizontal and vertical patterns. A horiz ontal pattern supposes that a ny individual or person is generally like anyone else. In other words, th ere is a sense of equality among people. On the other hand, a vertical pattern consists of hierarchies, where a person is considered different from others. The combination of individualism and collectivism on the one hand with horizontal and vertical patterns creates four dimensi ons upon which cultures vary. The original scale by Singelis et. al (1995) is made up of 32 items directed at 4 dimensions: Vertical-Individualism (V-I), Horizontal-Individualism (H-I), VerticalCollectivism (V-C), and Horizontal-Collectiv ism (H-C). The alpha reliabilities for the

PAGE 34

24 original subscales were as follows: r = 0.67 (H-I), r = 0.74 (V-I), r = .74 (H-C), and r = 0.68 (V-C). For the shortened version of the scale developed by Triandis and Gelfand (1998), the same four dimensions are identified, with a total of 27 items. The items are rated on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagr ee, 9= strongly agr ee), and include items such as “ Being a unique individual is important to me ” (H-I) and “Winning is everything” (V-I). A high score on any of the subs cales indicates a high degree of that characteristic that is being measured (e.g. a high score on horizontal-collectivism indicates a high degree of horizontal-collectiv ism). The coefficient alpha reliabilities for the subscales in phase-I were as follows: r = 0.60 (H-I), r = 0.62 (V-I), r = 0.68 (H-C), and r = 0.65 (V-C). Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994 (VSM 94) (Hofstede, 1994) : This scale measures five dimensions or indices of na tional or regional culture: Individualism (IDV), power distance (PDI), masculinity (MAS), unc ertainty avoidance (UAI), and long-term orientation (LTO), with four questions pe r dimension for a total of 20 items. The dimension of interest for this study was individualism (IDV). Sp ector et. al (2001) reported a mean reliability (coefficient alpha ) of .52 for the IDV scale of Hofstede’s VSM 94. Their study included a total sample of 6,524 from 23 countries. It should be noted that the items in the VSM 94 questionnaire are in tended to measure differences at the country level. For proper psychometric analyses, Hofstede set the minimum number of respondents per country to be used in th e comparisons at 20, and the ideal number is 50 (Hofstede, 1994). Phase-I reliability for the IDV portion of the VSM 94 was r = 0.79, and the items are written in the direction of individualism.

PAGE 35

25 Procedure The set of 192 items were administered to undergraduate students at USF using the psychology department par ticipant-pool. This allowed for the refinement of the scale to include a smaller number of internally-c onsistent set of items. The scales were uploaded onto the Experimentrak website (htt ps://usf.experimentrak.net) where registered students could access the scales and record th eir responses. Students were not directly recruited, although those who re gistered in the psychology participant pool had access to the scales, and were compensated with extra credit. Results and Discussion I Internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha ) were computed for each component and the total scale to test the level of item homoge neity, in addition to it em-total correlations for each item for each subscale and the total scal e. Items were eliminated if their deletion would raise the coefficient alpha for the scal e and their item-total correlation was less than .35. The initial elim ination process resulte d in 98 items to be retained for further analyses. Exploratory factor analysis was run using SPSS th at indicated a five factor solution. Further factor analyses were run for six, seven, and eight fa ctor solutions on the 98 items. The final factor solution was de termined quantitatively by examining the eigenvalues and factor loadings from the vari max rotated pattern matrix. The criterion for item retention based on the factor loadi ngs was a minimum loading of +.35 on the primary factor. Items that did not load on any factor with a minimum loading of +.35 were considered for elimination. Further, the final factor solution was determined qualitatively using theory and interpreting the content of the items. Items that loaded on 2

PAGE 36

26 or more factors with a minimum of +.35 were examined to determine if they made sense content-wise and consequently pl aced under the appropriate factor. The factor analyses conducted indicate d that a 5-factor solution should be retained. This decision was also supported upon reviewing the eigenvalues as well as the ease of interpreting the content of the load ed items. The larges t eigenvalues were 9.48, 6.53, 4.10, 2.55, 2.31, 1.92, 1.67, 1.54, 1.50, 1.29, 1.26, 1.13, 1.07, 1.06, and 1. The five largest eigenvalues had a cumulativ e variance accounted for of 43%. The criteria for item retention based on th e results of the fact or analysis using a five factor solution indicated that further item elimination was needed. A total of 65 items were later deleted due to low factor loadings and/or item content reexamination. The final scale is made up of 33 items (17 items for co llectivism and 16 items for individualism). Scale and item descriptives and reliability For the phase-I sample, means, standard de viations, and subscale coefficient alpha coefficients are presented in Table 1. The mean for the total scale was M=121.11 (SD=11.53). The overall internal co nsistency alpha coefficient was = 0.83. Table 1. Phase-I Scale Descriptives and Reliability Mean SD Alpha N MCS Scale Total 121.11 11.53 0.83 206 Responsibility 37.72 4.22 0.84 206 Affiliation 27.81 3.66 0.81 206 Social Welfare 25.37 3.99 0.75 206 Religion 16.20 4.18 0.80 206

PAGE 37

27 Table 1 (Continued). Achievement 13.34 3.09 0.85 206 COS Total 172.05 17.12 0.76 261 Horizontal Individualism 35.93 5.28 0.60 261 Vertical Individualism 41.65 8.06 0.62 261 Horizontal Collectivism 55.34 6.55 0.68 261 Vertical Collectivism 39.12 6.18 0.65 261 VSM 94 IDV 6.88 2.54 0.79 206 Factor solution Upon reviewing the item content of each factor (see Table 2), it became apparent that the derived factors were somewhat different from thos e originally theorized by Ho and Chiu (1994). The first factor concerns issues of responsib ility. For example, “I think people should be held respons ible for their own actions” and “I must pay for the consequences of my actions” illustrate this dimension. Th e second factor concerns the idea of one’s affiliation, and how that influences the formation of an identity, contrasting the focus of the identity between the individual and the group. For instance, “The group I belong to is a significa nt part of who I am” and “I feel it is impor tant to belong to a social group” exemplify this idea. Factor 3 is pr imarily focused on the idea of social welfare and whether the group or the individual is the primary source of that. For example, “Society is obligated to help t hose who can not help themselves” and “I think members of a group should care for each other’s welfare” Factor 4 relates to religious beliefs and the idea of religiosity being groupfocused or individual focused, as illustrated

PAGE 38

28 by “Religious beliefs and practices are private” and “My religion concerns only me” Finally, factor 5 concerns the idea of achievement or accomplishment. For example, “It is more efficient to work alone than to work in a group” and “I do things best when I work alone”. Table 2. Scale Items and Rotated Factor Loadings Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 I am responsible if I do something wrong .557 -.049 .207 .027 .005 I think people should be held responsible for their own actions .680 -.120 .185 -.006 -.044 The individual is responsible for the consequences of his/her actions .658 .039 .130 -.167 .101 We are affected by our own actions .670 -.061 .167 -.106 .012 I must pay for the consequences of my actions .685 .076 .172 -.081 .032 My own development makes me feel strong and secure .566 .178 -.001 .088 .107

PAGE 39

29 Table 2. (Continued). Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 My group is important to me .274 .453 .085 -.131 -.124 The group I belong to is a significant part of who I am .062 .532 .167 -.116 -.077 I always keep in contact with my group .188 .633 -.157 .117 .025 I feel it is important to belong to a social group .164 .540 .141 .055 .053 Being part of a group makes me happy .197 .622 .099 .003 -.065 I prefer being w ith other people .291 .554 -.085 .132 -.084 I gain a sense of security by associating with a strong group .127 .468 .190 -.049 -.020 I derive a sense of security from others in my social group .176 .509 .184 .039 -.016

PAGE 40

30 Table 2. (Continued). Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Poverty is the result of the failure of society -.074 .088 .540 .169 -.001 Mutual help within a group means much for my well-being .162 .342 .416 .076 -.013 Society is obligated to help those who can not help themselves .173 .054 .521 .160 .004 It is important to share wealth and property for the common good .137 .302 .380 .096 -.004 Sharing one’s wealth is better than keeping it for oneself .143 .220 .395 -.013 .050 The fortunate members of society should help benefit the less fortunate .385 .154 .364 .109 .009 I think members of a group should care for each other’s welfare .475 .169 .449 .006 -.169

PAGE 41

31 Table 2. (Continued). Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Established religion strives to control the individual -.055 .005 .176 .530 .095 I do not share my prayers with others, they are personal .041 -.005 .034 .487 .149 Religion is ultimately a highly private matter -.001 -.190 .160 .578 .045 Religious beliefs and practices are private .002 -.090 .149 .669 -.004 My religion concerns only me .012 -.091 .091 .665 .070 Things get done better when I work alone .133 -.122 .004 .107 .773 It is more effective to work alone than it is to work in a group -.106 .069 .009 .148 .718 I do things best when I work alone .158 -.217 .074 .120 .813 It is more efficient to work alone than to work in a group -.008 -.091 -.057 .237 .641 Note: indicates individualism. Factor 1= Responsibility; Factor 2= Identity; Factor 3= Social welfare; Factor 4= Religious beliefs; Factor 5= Achievement

PAGE 42

32 Ho and Chiu (1994) originally proposed five factors which were: responsibility, autonomy/conformity, self-relia nce/interdependence, values and achievement. Phase-I results indicate that indeed, a five factor solution was supporte d, although the factors themselves differed somewhat based on a review of the item content. The five factors that were identified from phase-I are: responsibil ity, affiliation, social welfare, religion, and achievement. Scale Inter-Correlations Zero-order Pearson correlations were computed for the MCS total, the five factors, the COS total and subscales, and the IDV from the VSM 94. The results are presented in Table 3. All factor s correlated positively and significantly to the total score, with Responsibility, Identity, and Social We lfare correlating significantly above r= .58. Responsibility, Affiliation, and Social Welfar e were found to negatively correlate with the IDV, while Religion and Achievement did not correlate with the IDV. It should be noted that a total score should not technically be computed fo r the IDV scale. Instead, the average score across the sample of each item is differentially weighted, summed, and then added to a constant to produce a country–level score. The correlation between the MCS and Hofstede’s IDV was negative (r= -.56, p < .01). No particular predictions regarding the relationship between the MCS factors and the COS subscales were made. Social Welfare was most strongly and positively correlated with HC and VC. Similarly, Affiliati on was most strongly related to both HC and VC. Religion was positively correlated w ith both HI and VI, and negatively with VC. Achievement correlated positively with HI, a nd did not correlate significantly with the

PAGE 43

33 other subscales. Finally, Responsibility was pos itively correlated with all the subscales, significantly so with HI, HC, and VC.

PAGE 44

34 Table 3 Phase-I Correlation Matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Responsibility -.38** .41** .01 .02 .34** .08 .43** .20** .68** .38** -.60** 2. Affiliation -.36** -.06 -.12 -.06 .04 .51** .41** .58** .34* -.29** 3. Social Welfare -.13 .01 .09 .02 .38** .20** .70** .25** -.44** 4. Religion -.26** .16* .15* -.01 -.14* .47** .07 -.07 5. Achievement -.24** .13 -.11 -.01 .33* .09 -.09 6. HI subscale -.28** .23** .17* .25** .59** -.19** 7. VI subscale --.01 .22** .15* .64** -.09 8. HC subscale -.58** .47** .66** -.35** 9. VC subscale -.25** .74** -.25** 10. MCS Total -.42** -.56** 11. COS Total --.33** 12. IDV -Note. = p<.05, ** = p<.01

PAGE 45

35 Phase-II The second wave involved administering the 98-item MCS (as well as Triandis and Gelfand’s (1998) COS and Hofstede’s (1994) IDV from the VSM 94) to an international student sample and an American sample that forms the basis for comparing mean differences among people from different nationalities. The participants were clustered into separate groups based on their geographical location. As Ronen and Shenkar (1985) point out, countries tend to group together geographically because for the most part, cultural similarity spreads first to areas closest to its or igin. Other dimensions that are closely intertwined with geography and that also influence the clustering of countries are language and re ligion. The expectation is th at each region will respond differently across the factors in terms of indi vidualistic or collectivistic orientation. It is not enough to describe a culture or region as being individu alistic or collectivistic in orientation one should look into the dimensions that a particular culture is individualistic or collectivistic in. Method II Participants The total number of participants in ph ase-II of the study wa s 152 University of South Florida international as well as Amer ican students contacte d via the university’s International Student and Scholar Services and the psychology depa rtment participant pool. The nine clusters identified in this study were: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Middle East and North Africa, East Asia, S outh Asia, Caribbean, Latin America, Africa, and U.S. Table 4 presents the complete ge ographical distribution of the participants.

PAGE 46

36 The sample mean age was 25.25 years (SD = 5.7). The gender di stribution of the sample in phase-II was more balanced than that of phase-I. Of the 132 who indicated a gender, 64.4% were female and 35.6% were ma le. The participants came from various countries, and were grouped according to general geographical location. The largest group was from North America. (22.6%) followed by Latin America (16.5%) and South Asia (15.8%). The average length of stay of the international students in the U.S. was 41.2 months, with a minimum of 2 months and a maximum of 13 years. The majority of respondents in this sample (55%) reported working 20 hours or less per week, while 29% international students reported working between 20 and 40 hours per week, and 16% reported working more than 40 hours per week. Table 4 Phase-II Participant Geographical Distribution Percentage N Western Europe 11.3 15 Middle East and North Africa 8.3 11 Eastern Europe 7.5 10 East Asia 4.5 6 South Asia 15.8 21 Caribbean 8.3 11 Latin America 16.5 22 Africa 5.3 7 U.S. 22.6 30

PAGE 47

37 Measures Multidimensional Culture Scale: Although the 98-item scale was administered, the final 33 items from phase-I were used fo r analyses. The item-scoring was on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “str ongly disagree” to “strongly ag ree”. Although the scale has near equal number of individualismand collectivism-directed items, each subscale was uniformly in one direction except for Res ponsibility. Religion and Achievement items were in the direction of individualism, while Affiliation and Social Welfare were in the direction of collectivism. Items that were written in the direction of collectivism were reverse scored, and final scor es on the factors were calcul ated in the direction of individualism. In addition, participants in this phase responded to Triandis and Gelfand’s COS (1998) scale as well as Hofstede’s (1994) IDV subscale from the VSM 94 described earlier in phase-I. The coefficient alpha re liabilities for the subscales of the COS in phase-II were as follows: = 0.65 (H-I), = 0.81 (V-I), = 0.70 (H-C), and = 0.72 (VC). Phase-II reliability for the Hofste de’s IDV portion of the VSM 94 scale was = 0.63. Procedure USF international students were recrui ted via the International Student and Scholar Services (ISSS) office while the North American sample came via the psychology department participant pool The scales were posted online on SurveyMonkey as well as on the Experiment rak website (https://usf.experimentrak.net). A website link was sent to all registered international students at USF via ISSS’s listserve. Included in the surveys were demogr aphic questions asking for the age, gender, home country, work hours, and length of stay in the US of the part icipants. Zero-order

PAGE 48

38 Pearson correlations were computed for the th ree scales and subscales Further, pairwise group comparisons were conducted using ANOV A with Duncan post-hoc to test the relationship among the factors and the geographic regions. Results II Scale and item descriptives and reliability Table 5 presents Phase-II scale results. The mean for the total scale was M=107.19 (SD=13.82). The overall internal c onsistency alpha coefficient was = 0.85. Table 5 Phase-II Sale Descriptives and Reliability Mean SD Alpha N MCS Total 107.19 13.82 0.85 156 Responsibility 23.73 7.27 0.89 156 Affiliation 29.73 4.61 0.81 156 Social Welfare 26.74 3.91 0.76 156 Religion 14.31 4.34 0.77 156 Achievement 12.23 3.65 0.91 156 COS Total 168.12 20.80 0.83 128 Horizontal Individualism 34.88 5.45 0.65 128 Vertical Individualism 39.70 10.99 0.81 128 Horizontal Collectivism 54.87 7.35 0.70 128 Vertical Collectivism 38.65 7.06 0.72 128 VSM 94 IDV 6.21 1.86 0.63 127

PAGE 49

39 Scale Inter-Correlations Table 6 presents the zero-order Pearson correlations computed for the MCS scale, the five factors, the COS total and subs cales, and the IDV. All factors correlated positively and significantly with the total score, with four of the five factors correlating at r= .49 or higher. The pattern of correlations amon g the factors for this sample is similar to that found in with the first sample. For example, Religion and Achievement were positively correlated in both samples as were Affiliation and Social Welfare. Of note is the negative correlation between Responsibility and Social Welfare in phase-II whereas it was positive in phase-I (-.18 vs. .38). Overall, th e pattern of correlations shows a stronger relationship among the factor s (both significant and non-si gnificant) with the second phase sample than with the first phase sample. The results in phase-II show that only So cial Welfare correlated positively and significantly with the IDV, whereas Responsibility, Affiliation, Religion, and Achievement were not correlated. The correl ation between the MCS scale and the IDV was near zero at r= -0.05. With respect to the correlations between th e five factors and the subscales of the COS, almost parallel results were found fo r Social Welfare, Affiliation, and Religion. The results for Social Welfare mirror those of phase-I with a significant, positive correlation with HC and VC. Similarly, A ffiliation was most strongly and positively related to HC and VC, as well as VI. Relig ion was only strongly positively correlated with VC. The results for Achievement and Resp onsibility in phase-II differed from those found in phase-I. Whereas Achievement did not co rrelate with 3 of the 4 subscales of the COS in phase-I, phase-II results show that Achievement correlated positively with all

PAGE 50

40 four subscales. Lastly, and perhaps most in terestingly, Responsibil ity did not correlate with any of the subscales in pha se-II, whereas it correlated sign ificantly with 3 of the 4 in phase-I.

PAGE 51

41 Table 6 Phase-II Correlation Matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Responsibility --.07 -.18* .32** .43** .09 .13 -.16 .04 .68** .05 -.13 2. Affiliation -.43** .10 .15 .01 .35** .49** .42** .49** .50** -.17 3. Social Welfare -.09 .08 .01 .05 .42** .23** .38** .25** -.22* 4. Religion -.33** -.14 .02 .06 .29** .63** .09 -.06 5. Achievement -.19* .19* .22** .25** .67** .31** .09 6. HI subscale -.33** .21* .12 .06 .55** -.06 7. VI subscale -.10 .27** .26** .74** -.05 8. HC subscale -.52** .24** .64** -.25** 9. VC subscale -.37** .70** -.04 10. MCS Total -.36** -.05 11. COS Total --.14 12. IDV -Note. = p<.05, ** = p<.01

PAGE 52

42 Group Comparisons Participants’ country of origin was used to come up with 9 geographical regions that will form the basis for the group comparisons (see Table 7). An ANOVA with Duncan post hoc was computed to make al l the pairwise comparisons of group means across the five factors. Three factors had a si gnificant overall F that warranted a post-hoc test: Responsibility F (8,121) = 112.79, p <.001; Religion F (8,121) = 4.28, p <.001; and Achievement F (8,121) = 3.45, p <.001; no significant differences were found between groups on Affiliation and Social Welfare. A high score on the factor indicates higher individualism. The results indicat e that, with respect to respon sibility, there appears to be 2 significantly different groups. For Responsibility, the U. S. sample scored highest and significantly different from all other groups. With respect to Religion, three distinguishable groups were possible: the samples from Africa and the U.S. scored highest, while the East European sample scored the lowest, with the rest of the regions making up the third group. Finally, with respect to Achievement, the U.S. sample scored the highest, while samples from Africa, East Asia, and the Middle East & North Africa scored in the middle, and the samples from South Asia, West Europe, Latin America, Caribbean, and East Europe scoring the lowest Tables 8 and 9 present the results of the significant pairwise comparisons for the COS subscales and overall ANOVA respectively.

PAGE 53

43 Table 7 MCS Significant Post-Hoc Group Comparisons Responsibility Religion Achievement MCS Total Region Mean Region Mean Region Mean Region Mean E. Europe 19.40a E. Europe 11.00a E. Europe 10.70a E. Europe 94.20a M.E. & N. Africa 19.70a South Asia 11.85ab Caribbean 11.27a South Asia 99.61ab Africa 20.00a W. Europe 12.33ab Latin America 11.71a Latin America 103.70ab Latin America 20.28a Latin America 13.90a-c W. Europe 11.73a W. Europe 103.85ab East Asia 20.33a East Asia 14.66a-c South Asia 11.85a Caribbean 104.60b South Asia 20.40a M.E. & N. Africa 15.30bc M.E. & N. Africa 12.70ab East Asia 107.16b Caribbean 20.80a Caribbean 15.36bc East Asia 12.83ab Africa 107.57b W. Europe 21.33a U.S. 16.93c Africa 14.00ab M.E. & N. Africa 109.11b U.S. 37.60b Africa 17.00c U.S. 15.33b U.S. 124.76c Note: Countries sharing the same superscript letter were not significan tly different from each other acc ording to Duncan post hoc tes ts.

PAGE 54

44 Table 8 COS Post-Hoc Group Comparisons HI VI HC VC Region Mean Region Mean Region Mean Region Mean East Asia 30.83a Caribbean 29.45a W. Europe 51.40a W. Europe 31.86a W. Europe 31.80ab Africa 35.66ab Africa 52.66ab E. Europe 33.40a Latin America 33.95a-c Latin America 38.00a-c U.S. 53.83ab Caribbean 37.09ab Caribbean 34.72a-c W. Europe 38.40a-c E. Europe 54.10ab U.S. 39.23bc Africa 35.00a-c East Asia 38.66a-c Latin America 55.04ab Latin America 39.90bc South Asia 35.77a-c South Asia 41.33bc East Asia 56.00ab South Asia 40.38bc U.S. 36.30bc E. Europe 42.60bc Caribbean 56.27ab Africa 40.50bc M.E. & N. Africa 36.72bc U.S. 42.86bc South Asia 56.38ab East Asia 42.16bc E. Europe 37.60c M.E. & N. Africa 47.05c M.E. & N. Africa 59.88c M.E. & N. Africa 44.83c Note: Countries sharing the same superscript letter were not significan tly different from each other acc ording to Duncan post hoc tes ts.

PAGE 55

45 Table 9 ANOVA Results Source 2 df F p MCS Total 0.48 8 13.66 .001 Responsibility 0.88 8 112.76 .001 Affiliation 0.07 8 0.97 .462 Social Welfare 0.08 8 1.21 .298 Religion 0.23 8 4.27 .001 Achievement 0.19 8 3.45 .001 Cultural Orientation Scale Total 0.17 8 3.04 .004 Horizontal Individualism 0.12 8 1.98 .054 Vertical Individualism 0.15 8 2.57 .013 Horizontal Collectivism 0.08 8 1.26 .268 Vertical Collectivism 0.24 8 4.69 .001 Hofstede VSM 94 IDV 0.06 8 .92 .498

PAGE 56

46 Discussion II Implications The goal of this study was fourfold: First, it aimed to test the structure of the dimensions proposed by Ho and Chiu (1994). To this end, a scale was developed through the targeting of psychology graduate students of various nationalitie s as item writers who generated the items for the scale. Second, the study meant to address the concerns over the reliability of previous measures by vi rtue of increased content breadth of the constructs in addition to having more items in each scale. The third goal was to test the degree of relatedness of the new scale with scales by Triandis a nd Gelfand (1998) and Hofstede (1994). Lastly, by sampling inte rnational students, the study aimed to investigate the notion that cultural tende ncies vary by dimension across geographical regions. The original five factors proposed were responsibility, autono my/conformity, selfreliance/interdependence, values, and achie vement. Upon reviewing both data and item content of each factor, a five factor solu tion was indeed supporte d, although the factors themselves differed somewhat. The scale consisted of the following factors: responsibility, affiliation, social welfare, religion, and achievement. Comparing the original definition of re sponsibility as proposed by Ho and Chiu (1994) with the item content of the factor in the MCS, it is apparent that both ethicallegal responsibility and consequences of ac tions remain as dimensions of the factor. Similarly, in the same way that Ho and Chiu (1994) defined achievement, the items that make up the Achievement factor in the MCS focus on the individual’s initiative, effort,

PAGE 57

47 and effectiveness in the pursuit and attainment of goals, contrasting individual effort with collective effort in that pursuit. The items that make up Affiliation indicate that it encompasses three related ideas that are influenced by the degree of affiliation one has to the group: security, identity, and value of the individual/group. S ecurity is gained from either the individual or from the group, one’s identity is dictated either by personal attributes or group membership, and the individual or the group is given pr ecedence and intrinsic value over the other. Social Welfare encompasses two compone nts of self-reliance /interdependence, specifically well-being and economic sharing. Th e onus of an individual’s well-being and welfare lies either in his/her hands or falls under the obligation of society. The idea of sharing wealth versus private owners hip also describes this factor. Religion as its own factor refers not to religiosity per se; rather it contrasts membership and participation in religious in stitutions with highly personal and private expression of one’s religious beliefs. The results of phase-I showed that soci al welfare was most strongly and positively correlated with HC and VC, indicating that the welfare and well being of people is considered the burden of society rather than the individual. Similarly, affiliation correlated positively with HC and VC. It seem s that one’s identity is derived more from how society views them and is dependent on wh ether individuals are considered of equal status or not, and less from the indivi dual’s perspective a nd the individual’s independence from other group members. In ot her words, the source for an individual’s identity resides without the person and within his/her iden tified group rather than on personal attributes. Drawing from the positiv e relationship between religion and both HI

PAGE 58

48 and VI, and a negative relationship with VC it seems that one’s religious beliefs are more individual-based or of a private nature regardless of status, and there is less deference to a higher status group for guidanc e. This relationship is indicative of preferences towards independence from me mberships in religious institutions. Achievement correlated positively with HI, a nd did not correlate significantly with the other subscales. A possible explanation fo r this finding is that the meaning of achievement for the U.S. sample may be conceptualized as equal opportunity competition, that is, the individual competes with others on equal footing or at least, each individual has the opportunity to compete e qually with others. Fi nally, Responsibility was positively correlated with all the subscal es, significantly so with HI, HC, and VC, indicating that responsibility is not necessar ily only individual based but that some responsibility falls on the group, and that the de gree of responsibility one feels is partly dependent on equal status within the group. For the most part, phase-II results presented similar relationships among the factors and the subscales as those found in phase-I, with different relationships for achievement and responsibility. Undersco ring the role of interdependence among members of a society, the results for social welfare and affiliation mirror those of phase-I with a significant, positive correlation w ith HC and VC. Unlike phase-I, Religion was positively correlated with VC indicating a preference to memberships in religious institutions, and deference to a higher status group for relig ious guidance. This sample indicated that one’s religious beliefs are less individual-ba sed and of a private nature. Achievement correlated positively with all four subscales of the COS scale, signifying

PAGE 59

49 the importance of achievement across differe nt cultures. Lastly, and perhaps most interestingly, Responsibility did not corre late with any of the COS subscales. While the sample sizes for the individua l groups were small, the results are nonetheless illuminating. The results provide so me evidence for the conceptualization of individualism and collectivism as worldviews or orientations, and that cultures would differ in their orientation depending on the pe rtinent dimension being measured. In other words, there is variation in the expressi on of individualism and collectivism across regions. Across the three significant factors, th e U.S. sample scored the highest or near highest, indicating a higher in dividualist orientation. Also, the East European sample scored consistently the lowest, indicating a higher collectivist orie ntation. Having scored the highest and significantly more different than the other groups on responsibility, the implication is that the U.S. has a more i ndividualist orientation to responsibility. While the result of the U.S. scoring highest may come as no surprise the more illuminating data is where the other groups ranked on those f actors. For achievement, the East Asian sample scored third highest after the U.S. a nd African samples, and higher than the West European sample bucking the generalization that eastern cultures are in general a collectivistic group. Similarly, the Middle Easter n/North African sample scored mid-pack on achievement. Similar trends can be seen with religion, where the African sample was most individualistic in thei r orientation, followed by the U.S. sample. Again, East Asian and Middle Easter/North Af rican samples ranked near the middle in terms of individualist/collectivist orie ntations. When summed, the to tal scores across geographical groups shows an interesting trend in that the U.S. sample overall was most individualist,

PAGE 60

50 followed by the Middle Eastern/North African sample, while both the East and West European samples were more collectivists. Study Limitations Several limitations to the study exist. Both samples consisted of university level students that cannot be considered accurate representations of the general population because of differences in terms of level of education and socioeconomic backgrounds. The convenience sampling also resulted in a larg er female representation of participants, particularly in phase-I, where most particip ants were undergraduate psychology majors (a predominantly female undergraduate population) Future directions should sample more working, non-student populations, and perhap s comparing students and non-student samples to determine whether in fact there are any differences between these two groups on these measures. While most studies use a single crossgroup comparison, this study attempted to circumvent this issue by sampling inte rnational students from many countries. Unfortunately, a small number of international students from each country were sampled in phase-II. This resulted in grouping part icipants by geographical location, potentially introducing greater valu e heterogeneity into the groups th an would occur for individual countries. Future Directions With respect to organizational researc h, there is a valuable need in linking individualism and collectivism to workplace variables, particularly with the everchanging organizational landscap e. Each year, more busine sses choose to operate in different cultures by opening branches of thei r offices in various countries, and hiring

PAGE 61

51 employees from the host culture, while maintaining U.S. senior managers. With this expansion comes the need to develop and a pply measures that make sense in the new culture and can more appropr iately assess employees. The direction psychology has been taking is towards the inclusion of culture (and cultural factors) into the study of behavior and psyc hology. With this inclusion come several issues such as refining the theory of cross-cultural psychology, the operationalization of culture, determining th e process(es) by which cultural factors are linked to (work) behaviors, and determini ng the various areas of applicability and research. This study hopes to extend th e empirical research that is undergoing in the area to catch up with the progressing theoretical development. It aims to fill the need of having an individual level measure of individualis m and collectivism covering new dimensions in the hopes of aiding in the accounting of cross-cultural di fferences currently observed in many studies. The main direction research in this area should take is in expanding the distribution of cultural groups selected for study. As expre ssed earlier, the most widely studied groups are the US and China, and the ensuing inferences made from these samples to the theory of cross-cultural psyc hology is risky. What could help this new direction and gaining access to new count ries is the ever-growing expansion of organizations and the establishment of branch offices in several previously inaccessible and unexplored countries. Needless to say, the expansion of the internet as a means of communication is greatly benefi cial for testing large number of cultural groups. In terms of using better methodologies, the litera ture points towards focusing on metric equivalence of constructs across varied populat ions, as well as moving away from relying

PAGE 62

52 on Likert-type scales. While psychology and cr oss-cultural psychology is still for the most part dominated by western views a nd driven by the attempt to understand the “other”, one can take solace in the change that is underw ay where more psychologists from various cultural origins who learn a nd train in western ps ychology bring with them alternative explanations stemming from their respective cultures.

PAGE 63

53 References Ayyash-Abdo, H. (2001). Individualism a nd collectivism: The case of Lebanon. Social Behavior and Personality, 29 503-518. Bond, M. H. (1994). Into the he art of collectivism: A personal and scientific journey. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, . K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Th eory, Method, and Applications (pp. 66-76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient of alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 297-334. Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psyc hological testing (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Davidson, A. R., Jaccard, J. J., Triandis, H. C., Morales, M. L., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1976). Cross-cultural model testing: Towa rd a solution of the etic-emic dilemma. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 1-13. Ho, D. Y-F., & Chiu, C-Y. (1994). Component ideas of individualism, collectivism, and social organization: An app lication in the study of Chinese culture. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, . K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 137-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativ ity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management Review, 9 389-398. Hofstede, G. (1994). Values survey module 1994 questionnaire: English version Retrieved November 14, 2004, from Un iversiteit van Tilburg Web site: http://feweb.uvt.nl/cente r/hofstede/english.html Hofstede, G. 1994. Values Survey Module 1994 Manual Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation: M aastrict, The Netherlands. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

PAGE 64

54 Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 22 17-36. Hui, C. H., & Yee, C. (1994). The shorte ned individualism-colle ctivism scale: Its relationship to demographic and work-related variables. Journal of Research in Personality, 28 409-424. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). I ndividualism-collectivism: A study of crosscultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17 225-248. Kashima, Y., Siegel, M., Tanaka, K., & Ka shima, E. S. (1992). Do people believe behaviors are consistent with attitu des? Towards a cultural psychology of attribution processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 111-114. Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivis m: Conceptual clarifi cation and elaboration. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, . K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Th eory, Method, and Applications (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kim, Triandis, K itiba i, Choi, and Yoon (1994). Introdutcion. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, . K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Matsumoto, D., Weissman, M. D., Preston, K ., Brown, B. R., & Kupperbusch, C. (1997). Context-specific measurement of individualism-collectivism on the individual level: The individualism-collectivism interpersonal assessment inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28 743-767. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinki ng individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72. Reykowski, J. (1994). Collectivis m and individualism as dimens ions of social change. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 276-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-collec tivism. Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157.

PAGE 65

55 Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/c ollectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, . K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Th eory, Method, and Applications (pp. 85-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applyi ng a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The Psychology of Values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualis m and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29 240-275. Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1994). Individua lism in a collectivisti c culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, . K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 123-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sparks, K ., Bernin, P., Bssing, A., Dewe, P., Lu, L., Miller, K., de Moraes, L. R., O’Driscoll, M., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H., Poelmans, S., Radhakrishnan, P., Russinova, V., Salamat ov, V., Salgado, J., Sanchez, J. I., Shima, S., Siu, O. L., Stora, J. B., Teichmann, M., Theorell, T., Vlerick, P., Westman, M., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., Wong, P., & Yu, S. (2001). An international study of the psychometric pr operties of the Hofstede values survey module (1994): A comparison of individual and country/provin ce level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50 269-281. Spector, P. E., Sanchez, J. I., Siu, O. L., Salgado, J., Ma, J. (2004). Eastern versus western control beliefs at work: An investigation of secondary control, socioinstrumental control, and work lo cus of control in China and the US. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53 38-60. Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cult ures: emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482-493. 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 etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38 257-267.

PAGE 66

56 Triandis, H. C. (1994). Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, . K itiba i, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp. 41-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism and collec tivism: Past, present, and future. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The Handbook of Culture & Psychology (pp. 35-50). Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press. Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., Chan, D. KS. (1998). Scenarios for the measurement of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29 275289. Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998) Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 118-128. Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 279-292.

PAGE 67

57 Appendices

PAGE 68

58 Appendix A: Multidimensional Culture Scale DIRECTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS: This questionnaire is anonymous, and there is no right or wrong answer. The purpose of this study is to know if you strongly agree or disagree with the statements listed below. If you strongly agre e enter a 5 in the blank space; if you strongly disagree, enter a 1 in that space. A response key is provided to guide you with your responses. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 VALUES Value of the individual I put my family first when it comes to making important decisions Each individual is invaluable and their interests should not be presided over by group welfare My group’s interest is more important than my individual interest

PAGE 69

59 It is always important to main tain one’s individuality within the group I put my needs before the needs of my close friends Groups that demand uniformity and compliance inhibit individual potential Groups that advocate cooperation enha nce individual diversity My group is important to me I value my own individuality over my group I prefer working with a group of people over working alone on most tasks I would sacrifice my own wellbeing for the sake of my group’s I put my needs before those of others Individuals are very valuab le to the group Value of Human Development Developing my ‘self’ is more important than developing relations with others I strive to do what I feel is right for me My success is dependent on the peop le who are in my life Realizing one’s potential to the fullest should be a priority in one’s life My success is up to me alone

PAGE 70

60 The best of me develops because of the help of my group I strive for the best that is good for the community I’d like to find a job in which my fu ll potential is realized Fulfilling my personal goals is more important than the goals of my family Personal success is dependent on my effort alone Humans need to develop to their fullest potential Value of individuality/uniformity I am different from my peers I like to lead my ow n fashion Some people make arguments only to stand out from the group If I don’t agree with my gr oup’s decision I let them know about it Standing out in a group should be encouraged and rewarded I try to behave in line with my group’s norms I do everything in my own way My life will be easy if I keep unifo rm with others around me I like being different from the rest of my family I don’t want to be trend-setter Value of Identity I tend to adhere to my family’s values

PAGE 71

61 My life loses its meaning if I don’t know my position in the society I never let anybody define me It is okay for an individual to not identify with their cultural background My identity comes from being a member of my group The group I belong to is a significa nt part of who I am My identity is based on wh at I think not my ethnic background I am proud of my cultural heritage I am no one without my family It is important for individuals to identify with their cultural background Human identity derives from human self-perceptions I identify myself based on pers onal attributes AUTONOMY/CONFORMITY Self-direction/conformity I usually go against the mainstream opinion I do what I think is right, not what society thinks is right I usually do what is expected from me I make decisions for me first, and then I think of other people*

PAGE 72

62 My social group knows what is best for me Most of the times I think and do what I want regardless of what others think Group norms are more important th an individual rules The group knows better what is right for the individual The direction of my life is dependent on my own judgments and decisions I do not make a particular decision if my family is against it When making decisions I consider the consequences for others I conform to what my social identity dictates Right to Privacy I think that politicians’ private li ves need to be scrutinized by the public I think society should not interfere with my privacy I think society’s responsibility to regulate supersedes individual privacy I don’t care what my neighbors sa y or think about my lifestyle It is my relatives’ right and duty to ask and find out about my personal life Individual’s privat e life should be free of any intervention

PAGE 73

63 from outside One’s group should regulate an individual’s life My family is involved in my private matters People should be able to speak their mind without fear of social repercussions I have the right to privacy Personal Privacy I don’t discuss my personal matters I think my personal matters should be kept private I think personal matters could be made public if for the common good It is okay for people close to me to know private things about me I tell people who are close to me only the things I feel that they need to know about me I ask for advice from my group regarding private matters I enjoy sharing my personal concerns with people around me I don’t discuss any of my private matters with my friends One should consult with family members when trying to decide on personal matters Private matters should be kept confidential Affiliation

PAGE 74

64 I don’t enjoy socializing I prefer to be alone most of the time I prefer to spend time with family and friends I wish my family would keep to it self in certain matters I prefer to be in the compa ny of one good friend instead of a group of good friends I like to be alone and have time for myself I enjoy socializing with family and friends I always keep in contact with my group I prefer working together with ot hers to working alone I feel it is important to be long to a social group Being part of a group makes me happy Socializing in groups of good friends should be a priority I prefer being with other people RESPONSIBILITY Ethical/Legal Responsibility I am responsible if I do something wrong I think people should be held re sponsible for their own actions I think members of a group shoul d share the responsibilities brought by the other members’ actions Whenever possible I try to minimize my responsibility

PAGE 75

65 towards society The family is responsible when a child becomes a criminal as an adult The individual is responsible fo r the consequences of his/her actions The individual has sole responsibil ity for his/her actions I take full responsibility of the actions that I make Each individual is responsibl e for his/her moral and legal actions My social group is as responsible for my actions as I am Consequences of Actions I am very mindful about the consequences of my actions for others We are affected by our own actions My actions affect other members of the group or society I am careless in my actions if their consequences do not affect me If I act in wrongful manner, my family will pay the consequences I believe one should act keeping th e group’s welfare in mind One should not engage in actions which may dishonor the group

PAGE 76

66 My actions also have consequen ces to people around me I must pay for the consequences of my actions My actions affect my group as mu ch as their behavior affects me ACHIEVEMENT Individual/group effort Things get done better when I work alone Great progress comes from collective efforts Team effort is superior to i ndividual creative ideas It is more effective to work alone than it is to work in a group My successes result from my own efforts I do things best when I work alone I look for help from others whenever I cannot do something A good leader drives the team performance I like to work alone towards my goals It is more efficient to work alone than to work in a group My achievements are mine alone My accomplishments are the result of my effort along with others’ Competition/Cooperation I usually perform better in competitive situations

PAGE 77

67 I think the best can only be brought out by competition I feel comfortable when a team agrees for the sake of unity Group work is the best way to succeed I always prefer cooperation to competition Success feels better when achieved through competition I can only attain my goal through competing with others I like to work with others Goals are best accomplished through cooperation SELF-RELIANCE/IN TERDEPENCDENCE Self-Reliance/Interdependence The fortunate members of society should help benefit the less fortunate I think members of a group should care for each other’s welfare Poverty is the result of the failure of society Man is not a solitary being My welfare depends on my group’s welfare Everyone is responsible for his/ her own well-being My welfare depends on myself Mutual help within a group means much for my well-being My family plays a key role in my wellness Society is obligated to help those who can not help

PAGE 78

68 themselves I am self-reliant Relying on others is a weakness Individual/Group Interest I weight all my actions in term s of their contributions to the society I think people are most motivated by their self interests People are motivated to fulfill obligations to the group or society The decisions I make have ramifications for other people close to me The needs of the many take priority over the needs of individuals My group’s interests have priority over my own interests I try not to pursue a goal that is in conflict with my society’s interests I do things to please my family unit I do not care about others as long as my needs are met Security I believe in strong leadership I gain a sense of security by associ ating with a strong group The chain is only as strong as its weakest link

PAGE 79

69 I am more confident when I am around my group My individual strength will ensu re my security I derive a sense of security fr om my own strength I need my group to feel safe My own development makes me feel strong and secure I feel secure when I am alone Knowledge of one’s audience provides more confidence I derive a sense of security from others in my social group Economic Individualism/Collectivism Private ownership is the ke y to wealth It is important to share wea lth and property for the common good I will lend my neighbor something dear to me if he needed it Communal ownership is preferable to private ownership I believe that one should share things with others Sharing one’s wealth is better than keeping it for oneself I like to keep my personal wealth for myself because I earned it I have an obligation to look after my parents economically It is expected that adult childre n will take care of their aging parents My wealth is my own

PAGE 80

70 Political Individualism/Collectivism I feel closer to people with the same political attitudes as mine Individual rights are of the utmost importance The state should have power over individual rights to regulate All rights should satisfy individu al needs and be regulated by laws The focus of a political system should be the individual I prefer government policies that are in favor of the majority An individual’s rights should not be violated for political gain My rights are above those of my group Religious Individualism/Collectivism Religion is about having a personal relationship with God My personal salvation is reached only after the salvation of the group Established religion strives to co ntrol the individual Religion should put the needs of the group before the individual I do not share my prayers with othe rs, they are personal Private prayer is different from praying in church/temple/mosque Religion is ultimately a highly private matter

PAGE 81

71 Religious beliefs and practices are private My religion concerns only me Religious institutions should place the benefit of the institution first My relationship with God is one on one Religion should help an indivi dual further understand his/her faith Note: indicates individualism Demographic questions: 1) Gender: Male Female 2) Age: 3) Race/Ethnicity: White/Caucasian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino/Latina Asian/Pacific Islander Native American Middle Eastern Other ____________________ 4) Year in college: Freshman Sophomore Junior

PAGE 82

72 Senior Other __________________ 5) Nationality: _____________________ 6) Country of origin: ________________________ 7) Length of stay in the US: ____________________

PAGE 83

73 Appendix B: Culture Orientation Scale DIRECTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS: This questionnaire is anonymous, and th ere are no right or wrong answers. We want to know if you strongly agree or disagree with some statements. If you strongly agree enter a 9 in the blank space; if you strongly disagree, enter a 1 in that space; if you are unsure or thi nk that the question does not apply to you, enter a 5 next 5 to the statement. In short, use this key: Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Disagree TRIANDIS & GELFAND (1998) 27 ITEMS: Horizontal Individualism: I’d rather depend on myself than others. I rely on myself most of the ti me; I rarely rely on others. I often do my own thing. My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me. Being a unique individual is important to me. Vertical Individualism: It is important that I do my job better than others. Winning is everything. Competition is the law of nature. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused. I enjoy working in situations involving competition.

PAGE 84

74 Some people emphasize winning; I am not one of them (reversed). Without competition, it is not possible to have a good society. It annoys me when other people perform better than I do. Horizontal Collectivism: If a coworker gets a prize, I would feel proud. The well-being of my cowork ers is important to me. To me, pleasure is spending time with others. I feel good when I cooperate with others. If a relative were in financial difficu lty, I would help w ithin my means. It is important to me to maintain harmony in my group. I like sharing lit tle things with my neighbors. My happiness depends very much on the happiness of those around me. Vertical Collectivism: Parents and children must stay t ogether as much as possible. It is my duty to take care of my family, ev en when I have to sacrifice what I want. Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required. It is important to me that I resp ect the decisions made by my groups. Children should be taught to place duty before pleasure. I usually sacrifice my self-inter est for the benefit of my group. *Scramble these items when using.

PAGE 85

75 Appendix C: Values Survey Module V S M 9 4 VALUES SURVEY MODULE 1994 QUESTIONNAIRE English version MAY BE FREELY USED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES FOR REPRODUCTION IN CO MMERCIAL PUBLICATIONS, PERMISSION IS NEEDED Copyright Geert Hofstede BV hofstede@bart.nl

PAGE 86

76 INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE (VSM 94) Please think of an ideal job, disregarding your present job, if you have one. In choosing an ideal job, how important would it be to you to ... (please circle on e answer in each line across): 1 = of utmost importance 2 = very important 3 = of moderate importance 4 = of little importance 5 = of very little or no importance 1. Have sufficient time for your personal or family life 1 2 3 4 5 2. Have good physical worki ng conditions (good ventilation and lighting, adequate work space, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 3. Have a good working relationship with your direct superior 1 2 3 4 5 4. Have security of employment 1 2 3 4 5 5. Work with people who cooperate well with one another 1 2 3 4 5 6. Be consulted by your direct superior in his/her decisions 1 2 3 4 5 7. Have an opportunity for advancement to higher level jobs 1 2 3 4 5 8. Have an element of variety and adventure in the job 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 87

77 In your private life, how important is each of the following to you? (please circle one answer in each line across): 9. Personal steadiness and stability 1 2 3 4 5 10. Thrift 1 2 3 4 5 11. Persistence (perseverance) 1 2 3 4 5 12. Respect for tradition 1 2 3 4 5 INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE (VSM 94) 13. How often do you feel nervous or tense at work? 1. never 2. seldom 3. sometimes 4. usually 5. always 14. How frequently, in your experien ce, are subordinates afraid to express disagreement with their superiors? 1. very seldom 2. seldom 3. sometimes 4. frequently 5. very frequently

PAGE 88

78 To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (please circle one answer in each line across): 1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = undecided 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree 15. Most people can be trusted 1 2 3 4 5 16. One can be a good manager without having precise answers to most questions that subordinates may rais e about their work 1 2 3 4 5 17. An organization structure in which ce rtain subordinates have two bosses should be avoided at all costs 1 2 3 4 5 18. Competition between employees usually does more harm than good 1 2 3 4 5 19. A company's or organization's rules s hould not be broken not even when the employee thinks it is in the company' s best interest 1 2 3 4 5 20. When people have failed in life it is often their own fault 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 89

79 INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE (VSM 94) Some information about yourself (for statistical purposes): 21. Are you: 1. male 2. female 22. How old are you? 1. Under 20 2. 20-24 3. 25-29 4. 30-34 5. 35-39 6. 40-49 7. 50-59 8. 60 or over 23. How many years of formal school e ducation (or their equivalent) did you complete (starting with primary school)? 1. 10 years or less 2. 11 years 3. 12 years 4. 13 years 5. 14 years

PAGE 90

80 6. 15 years 7. 16 years 8. 17 years 9. 18 years or over 24. If you have or have had a paid job, what kind of job is it / was it? 1. No paid job (includes full-time students) 2. Unskilled or semi-skilled manual worker 3. Generally trained office worker or secretary 4. Vocationally trained craftsperson, technician, informatician, nurse, artist or equivalent 5. Academically trained professional or equivalent (but not a manager of people) 6. Manager of one or mo re subordinates (non-managers) 7. Manager of one or more managers 25. What is your nationality? 26. What was your nationality at birth (if different)?

PAGE 91

81 Appendix D: Non-Significant Post-Hoc Group Comparisons Table 10 Non-Significant Post-Hoc Group Comparisons Affiliation Social Welfare VSM 94 IDV Region Mean Region Mean Region Mean E. Europe 27.90 E. Europe 25.20 Caribbean 5.36 Africa 28.57 U.S. 25.46 E. Europe 5.40 W. Europe 29.13 South Asia 26.68 South Asia 6.00 U.S. 29.43 East Asia 27.16 Latin America 6.18 South Asia 29.73 Latin America 27.42 W. Europe 6.30 Caribbean 30.18 Caribbean 27.54 U.S. 6.56 Latin America 30.75 Africa 28.00 M.E. & N. Africa 6.66 M.E. & N. Africa 32.00 W. Europe 28.14 East Asia 6.83 East Asia 32.16 M.E. & N. Africa 28.40 Africa 6.83 Note: Countries sharing the same superscript letter were not significan tly different from each other acc ording to Duncan post hoc tes ts.