Individualism and Christianity.

Comments on E. Sampson's (see record 2001-16333-002) linking individualism and collectivism to religious origins. The author comments on Sampson's overgeneralization of Protestant individualism to all branches of Christianity, and describes similarities between Roman Catholicism and rabbinic Judaism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sampson among the Philistines.

Comments on E. Sampson's (see record 2001-16333-002) linking individualism and collectivism to religious origins. The author comments critically on Sampson's grouping of all branches of Christianity in his critique of Protestant individualism. He points out theological subtleties and their historical roots to demonstrate the heterogeneous nature of Christianity and the relative similarity of Christian and Jewish intellectual traditions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sampson at last and applied.

Comments on E. Sampson's (see record 2001-16333-002) linking individualism and collectivism to religious origins. The author provides a framework for applications of Sampson's theory to the practice of professional psychology, especially as to how the other is represented, imagined, understood, and experienced. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Bringing culture to basic psychological theory--Beyond individualism and collectivism: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).

D. Oyserman, H. M. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeier (2002) (see record 2002-00183-001) offered a comprehensive literature review on individualism and collectivism that forwards valuable suggestions for ways to enhance future research conducted within this framework. The author argues that although their criticisms of much contemporary social psychological research on individualism and collectivism are valid, even more fundamental problems need to be recognized as characterizing work within this tradition, such as the insufficiently subtle nature of the views held of culture, the limited attention given to meanings, and the downplaying of contextual variation. The author suggests adopting more nuanced and process-oriented conceptions of culture and more contextually grounded views of its impact on psychological functioning as a way of realizing the promise of cultural psychology to broaden and provide insight into basic psychological theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures--A critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).

Analyzing national and ethnic differences in individualism and collectivism, D. Oyserman, H. M. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeier (2002) (see record 2002-00183-001) showed that small differences in scales or samples produce markedly divergent results, challenging the validity of these constructs. The author examines the following limitations of research on individualism and collectivism: It treats nations as cultures and culture as a continuous quantitative variable; conflates all kinds of social relations and distinct types of autonomy; ignores contextual specificity in norms and values; measures culture as the personal preferences and behavior reports of individuals; rarely establishes the external validity of the measures used; assumes cultural invariance in the meaning of self-reports and anchoring and interpretation of scales; and reduces culture to explicit, abstract verbal knowledge. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Let's not ignore individuality.

Responds to E. E. Sampson's (see record 1989-32595-001) distinction between individualism and globalism by citing several important aspects of individualism. Individuals often react quite differently to group teachings and pressure, they are affected both negatively and positively by socialization, and they develop neurosis or emotional disturbance from both social groups and their own dogmatic thinking. Philosophies to help people retain their individuality and to remember their sociality are proposed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A comment on Sampson's "Psychology and the American ideal."

E. E. Sampson's (see record 1979-28675-001) thesis concerning self-contained individualism is examined from a dialectical perspective. It is suggested that his analysis is incomplete because he does not consider the possibility that symbiosis–dependence may be masked by apparent interdependence or individualism. Moreover, his critical discussion of androgyny appears to be a one-sided interpretation that ignores the probability that interdependence may follow from independence, rather than the reverse. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism.

Do differences in individualism and collectivism influence values, self-concept content, relational assumptions, and cognitive style? On the one hand, the cross-national literature provides an impressively consistent picture of the predicted systematic differences; on the other hand, the nature of the evidence is inconclusive. Cross-national evidence is insufficient to argue for a causal process, and comparative data cannot specify if effects are due to both individualism and collectivism, only individualism, only collectivism, or other factors (including other aspects of culture). To address these issues, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of the individualism and collectivism priming literature, with follow-up moderator analyses. Effect sizes were moderate for relationality and cognition, small for self-concept and values, robust across priming methods and dependent variables, and consistent in direction and size with cross-national effects. Results lend support to a situated model of culture in which cross-national differences are not static but dynamically consistent due to the chronic and moment-to-moment salience of individualism and collectivism. Examination of the unique effects of individualism and collectivism versus other cultural factors (e.g., honor, power) awaits the availability of research that primes these factors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cultural accommodation: Hybridity and the framing of social obligation.

Implications of cultural accommodation–hybridization were explored within the framework of individualism–collectivism. Individualism highlights the personal and centralizes individuals as the unit of analyses, whereas collectivism highlights the social and contextualizes individuals as parts of connected social units. In 2 experiments, the ways in which individualism, collectivism, and identity salience influence social obligation to diverse others was explored. The authors varied the personal goal interrupted (achievement–pleasure), the target (individual–group), and focus (in-group–larger society) of social obligation within subjects. The authors hypothesized that collectivism would increase obligation to the in-group when identity was made salient; that individualism alone would dampen social obligation; and that cultural accommodation–hybridization (being high in both individualism and collectivism) would increase obligation to larger society. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Culture and psychology in Hong Kong.

Comments on a discussion of clinical psychology in Hong Kong by D. Ho (see record 1986-15498-001). It is argued that Ho's otherwise admirable article is marred by the misidentification of Maslow and Rogers as "modern prophets of individualism," as both would have accepted Ho's synthesis of Western individualism and Chinese collectivism. (2 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Links between race/ethnicity and cultural values as mediated by racial/ethnic identity and moderated by gender.

Two studies examined whether individualism (orientation toward one's own welfare), collectivism (orientation toward the welfare of one's larger community), and familism (orientation toward the welfare of one's immediate and extended family) are distinct cultural values predicted by race/ethnicity. The 3 constructs proved to be separate dimensions, although collectivism and familism were positively correlated. In Study 1, persons of color scored higher on collectivism and familism than did Anglos. No differences emerged for individualism. Also, persons of color scored higher than Anglos on racial/ethnic identity, which in turn was a positive predictor of all 3 cultural values. In Study 2, we replicated the group differences on collectivism and familism for men but not for women. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Culture and basic psychological processes--Toward a system view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).

D. Oyserman, H. A. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeier (2002) (see record 2002-00183-001) provide a most comprehensive review of empirical studies that used attitudinal surveys to capture cultural variations in individualism and collectivism. In the present article, the author suggests that the cross-cultural validity of attitudinal surveys can no longer be taken for granted. Moreover, the meta-theory underlying this literature (called the entity view of culture) is called into question. The author presents an alterative meta-theory (called the system view of culture) and discusses its implications for future work in cultural and cross-cultural psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the United States.

Although the individualism–collectivism dimension is usually examined in a U.S. versus Asian context, there is variation within the United States. The authors created an eight-item index ranking states in terms of collectivist versus individualist tendencies. As predicted, collectivist tendencies were strongest in the Deep South, and individualist tendencies were strongest in the Mountain West and Great Plains. In Part 2, convergent validity for the index was obtained by showing that state collectivism scores predicted variation in individual attitudes, as measured by a national survey. In Part 3, the index was used to explore the relationship between individualism–collectivism and a variety of demographic, economic, cultural, and health-related variables. The index may be used to complement traditional measures of collectivism and individualism and may be of use to scholars seeking a construct to account for unique U.S. regional variation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Variations in collectivism and individualism by ingroup and culture: Confirmatory factor analysis.

Five models of collectivism and individualism, which varied by ingroup and measurement specification, were tested with confirmatory factor analyses. The sample consisted of 493 college students from South Korea and the United States, with U.S. students divided between Asian Americans and European Americans. Results indicated that collectivism and individualism are best represented by a 4-factor model with the latent variables Kin Collectivism (KC), Kin Individualism (KI), Nonkin Collectivism (NC), and Nonkin Individualism (NI). KC and Kl were strongly inversely related, but NC and Nl were only moderately so. Whereas KC and NC were moderately related within each of the 3 student groups, Kl and Nl were moderately related only among Koreans and Asian Americans, and not among European Americans. Thus, the meanings of collectivism and individualism vary with ingroup and culture. Measurement, methodological, and conceptual implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The lens of personhood: Viewing the self and others in a multicultural society.

Explored some aspects of the subjective experience of individualism and collectivism in Israel, a society that simultaneously emphasizes both worldviews. Ss were Arab and Jewish Israeli students (Study 1 n?=?211, Study 2 n?=?370, Study 3 n?=?160, and Study 4 n?=?280). As hypothesized, endorsing individualism as a worldview was related to focusing on private aspects of the self and conceptualizing the self in terms of distinctions between the self and others. Hypotheses suggesting a relationship between collectivism, centrality of social identities to self-definition, a focus on public aspects of the self, and heightened perception of intergroup conflict were also supported by the data. Unexpectedly, endorsement of an individualistic worldview was also related to these variables. Discussion focuses on the meld of individualism and collectivism that may occur in Israel. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reinterpreting individualism and collectivism: Their religious roots and monologic versus dialogic person–other relationship.

Examining the religious roots of individualism and collectivism and seeing them as defining alternative conceptions of the person–other relationship reveal a close link between Christianity and the former and between rabbinic Judaism and the latter. Comparisons between these 2 religious formations in the Western world expose a relationship between Christian individualism and an instrumental and monologic understanding of the person–other relationship and a contrasting rabbinic view that offers a formative and dialogic understanding of that relationship. Because the Christian view has been dominant, its understandings have framed the debates on individualism–collectivism and defined the options available for the person–other relationship, providing a somewhat distorted picture of the possibilities for humankind. The dialogic and formative perspective of the rabbinic tradition introduces an alternative portrait of human nature. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reification in Sampson's paper.

Comments on E. E. Sampson's (see record 1982-04617-001) use of the term reification and questions his use of the phrase "objective reality" in a paper that speaks clearly about the dangers of reification. The author agrees that fresh approaches to research can result from questioning the value assumptions of one's theorizing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Just how many different forms of culture are there?

Responds to comments by H. Takooshian (see record 2009-24989-012) and J. K. Tebes (see record 2009-24989-013) on the current author's original article, "Many forms of culture" (see record 2009-04471-003). The current author argued that psychologists tend to focus on too narrow a set of cultures (ethnic and national cultures) and some dimensions of those cultures (individualism–collectivism, independence–interdependence). He then argued that there are a number of ways in which it would be important for psychologists to expand how we theorize about culture, do research on culture, and integrate culture into clinical practice and applied settings. He discussed religion, social class, and within-country region as three examples of under-explored types of culture (Cohen, 2009). Takooshian (2010) and Tebes (2010) pointed to a potentially expanded set of cultures beyond the three examples the current author focused most on (religion, socioeconomic status/social class, region) to include age, sex, sexual orientation, physical and mental challenges, and others. The current author agrees that these are good candidates to be considered cultures as well. Even within the same household (with people sharing ethnicity, nationality, religion, social class, and region of origin), adolescent teenagers hold certain cultural outlooks different from those of their middle-aged parents. This raises the questions of just how limitless the set of cultures is and whether every group is a culture. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task.

A meta-analysis of conformity studies using an Asch-type line judgment task (1952, 1956) was conducted to investigate whether the level of conformity has changed over time and whether it is related cross-culturally to individualism–collectivism. The literature search produced 133 studies drawn from 17 countries. An analysis of US studies found that conformity has declined since the 1950s. Results from 3 surveys were used to assess a country's individualism–collectivism, and for each survey the measures were found to be significantly related to conformity. Collectivist countries tended to show higher levels of conformity than individualist countries. Conformity research must attend more to cultural variables and to their role in the processes involved in social influence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Identity politics and the Tower of Babel.

Comments on E. E. Sampson's (see record 1994-17460-001) argument that the theories, methods, and conclusions of psychology come swathed in dead/descended White European male (DWEM) biases and traditions. Kuhlmam asserts that Sampson's article is oxymoronic to his position in that he had both thought and written it in a DWEM language. Also, the loose coalition of identity groups to which Sampson's article refers has organized itself in a manner associated with DWEM political parties. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)