A meta-analysis reported in this article compared the effects of ontological and utilitarian measures of individualism and collectivism on the findings of published research. Ontological differences in individualism and collectivism concern the degree to which either individuals or collectivities are interpreted as the primary entities comprising social reality. Reflecting these differences are measures that include subjects such as the degree of permanence and sense of collective obligation associated with interpersonal, group, or community relationships. Utilitarian distinctions in individualism and collectivism involve beliefs that either individuals or collectivities are instrumental in the pursuit of valued outcomes. Related measures include items concerning the attractiveness or consequences of working alone versus working in a group. Results of the meta-analysis indicated that ontological and utilitarian measures have produced differing findings in several notable instances, with utilitarian measures producing larger effects.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888.
2.
BellahR. N.MadsenR.SullivanW. M.SwidlerA.TiptonS. M. (1985). Habits of theheart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row.
3.
BreerP. E.LockeE. A. (1965). Task experience as a source of attitudes. Homewood. IL: Dorsey.
4.
CarpenterS. (2000). Effects of cultural tightness and collectivism on self-concept and causalattributions. Cross-Cultural Research, 34(1), 38-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939710003400103.
5.
CochranW. G.CoxG. M. (1957). Experimental designs (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
6.
CohenJ.CohenP. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
CramptonS. M.WagnerJ. A.III (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.67
8.
DorfmanP. W.HowellJ. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3(1), 127-150.
9.
Drach-ZahavyA. (2004). The proficiency trap: How to balance enriched job designs and the team’s need for support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 979-996. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.284.
10.
ErezM.EarleyP. C. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 658–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.4.658
11.
ErezM.EarleyP. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. New York: Oxford University Press.
GibsonC. B.SaxtonT. (2005). Thinking outside the black box: Outcomes of team decisions with third-party intervention. Small Group Research, 36(2), 208-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404270376.
15.
GoncaloJ. A.StawB. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.11.003
16.
HofstedeG. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
JacksonC. L.ColquittJ. A.WessonM. J.Zapata-PhelanC. P. (2006). Psychologicalcollectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 884–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.884
22.
KemmelmeierM. (2003). Individualism and attitudes toward affirmative action: Evidence from priming experiments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(2), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_2
23.
KluckholnF.StrodtbeckF. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.
24.
LingY.ZhaoH.BaronR.A. (2007). Influence of founder-CEOs’ personal values on performance: Moderating effects of firm age and size. Journal of Management, 33(5), 673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307305564
25.
MarcusJ.LeH. (2013). Interactive effects of levels of individualism-collectivism on cooperation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(6), 813–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1875
MeadM. (1967). Cooperation and competition among primitive people. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
28.
OishiS.WyerR. S.ColcombeS. J. (2000). Cultural variation in the use of current life satisfaction to predict the future. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.434.
29.
OysermanD.CoonH. M.KemmelmeierM. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
30.
ParsonsT.ShilsE. A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and approaches. New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
33.
RokeachM. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
SchefféH. (1970). Practical solutions of the Behrens-Fisher problem. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65(332), 1501-1508. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1970.10481179.
35.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. L. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Los Angeles: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014.
36.
SingelisT. M.TriandisH. C.BhawukD. P. S.GelfandM. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240-275. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F106939719502900302.
37.
TarasV.SaralaR.MuchinskyP.KemmelmeierM.SingelisT. M.AvsecA.CoonH. M.DinnelD. L.GardnerW.GraceS.HardinE. E.HsuS.JohnsonJ.Karakitapoğlu AygünZ.KashimaE. S.KolstadA.MilfontT. L.OetzelJ.OkazakiS.SinclairH. C. (2014). Opposite ends of the same stick? Multi-method test of the dimensionality of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(2), 213-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113509132.
38.
TriandisH. (2019). Individualism and collectivism. New York: Routledge.
39.
TriandisH. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley.
TriandisH. C.BontempoR.VillarealM. J.AsaiM.LuccaN. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Individualism andcollectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323.
42.
TriandisH. C.GelfandM. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–128.
43.
WagnerJ. A.III (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism. Effects on Cooperation in Groups: Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 280-304. https://doi.org/10.5465/256731.
44.
WagnerJ. A.III (2002). Utilitarian and ontological variation in individualism-collectivism. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 301-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24009-5.
45.
WagnerJ. A.IIIHumphreyS. E.MeyerC. J.HollenbeckJ. R. (2012). Individualism-collectivism and team member performance: Another look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 946-963. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.783.
WheelerL.ReisH. T.BondM. H. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in everyday social life: The middle kingdom and the melting pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.79.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
