Identification with all humanity measured as an individual characteristic is an important factor related to social and international relations, such as concern for global issues and human rights, prosocial attitudes, intergroup forgiveness, attitudes toward immigrants, solving global problems, reactions to hate crimes and dehumanisation. We examine the factorial structure, psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the Identification with All Humanity (IWAH) scale in student samples from five countries (the United States, Poland, France, Mexico and Chile; N = 1930). Separate confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) for each country showed a second‐order model of one superordinate factor with two subfactors. The cross‐country validation of the scale, based on multigroup CFA, confirmed configural and metric invariance between countries for raw scores, and full metric invariance for “pure” scores. This study showed that the IWAH scale can be successfully used for cross‐country research and the results from different countries can be compared and integrated.

Studies repeatedly have documented that societal well-being is associated with individualism. Most of these studies, however, have conceptualized/measured well-being as individual life satisfaction-a type of wellbeing that originates in Western research traditions. Drawing from the latest research on interdependent happiness and on family well-being, we posit that people across cultures pursue different types of wellbeing, and test whether more collectivism-themed types of well-being that originate in Confucian traditions also are associated with individualism. Based on data collected from 2,036 participants across 12 countries, we find support for the association between individual life satisfaction and individualism at the societal level, but show that well-being's association with individualism is attenuated when some collectivismthemed measures of well-being are considered. Our article advances knowledge on the flourishing of societies by suggesting that individualism may not always be strongly linked with societal well-being. Implications for public policies are signaled.

Although the term “ethnic group” (EG) is often used in social studies, its definition differs among researchers. Moreover, little is known about ordinary people’s subjective understanding of this term, even though it is often used in social discourse. We examined this issue in a cross-sectional study of 273 American, British, Mexican, and Polish students using an open-ended questions approach. Results revealed cultural differences in patterns of “ethnic group” definitions across the four countries. U.S. respondents predominantly connected EG to “race”; British participants frequently related it to “race,” but more often to “common culture” and “customs/traditions.” Both latter categories were overwhelmingly dominant in Mexico and Poland. However, “nation,” “shared history,” “religion,” “language,” and “territory” were also very popular as EG understandings in Poland. Although most participants used the newer definition of EG (referring to all groups in a society, including minority and majority groups), a few in each country used the term only to refer to minorities and people different from themselves (an older, “minus one” definition). Unexpected definitions of EG also appeared (e.g., people having similar hobbies, having similar work goals, or living in the same city). The results also indicate that for the United States, the United Kingdom, and Mexico, “ethnic group” was more a subgroup within a nation, whereas in Poland, they represented the same level of categorization. The theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.

How can one conclude that well-being is higher in country A than country B, when well-being is being measured according to the way people in country A think about well-being? We address this issue by proposing a new culturally sensitive method to comparing societal levels of well-being. We support our reasoning with data on life satisfaction and interdependent happiness focusing on individual and family, collected mostly from students, across forty-nine countries. We demonstrate that the relative idealization of the two types of well-being varies across cultural contexts and are associated with culturally different models of selfhood. Furthermore, we show that rankings of societal well-being based on life satisfaction tend to underestimate the contribution from interdependent happiness. We introduce a new culturally sensitive method for calculating societal well-being, and examine its construct validity by testing for associations with the experience of emotions and with individualism-collectivism. This new culturally sensitive approach represents a slight, yet important improvement in measuring well-being.

Artykuł jest głosem w dyskusji nad wzajemnymi zależnościami pomiędzy patologicznym typem osobowości menedżera i kulturą organizacyjną. Autorzy w swoich rozważaniach skupiają się na psychopatii, narcyzmie i osobowości histrionicznej oraz ich wpływie na kapitał ludzki w organizacji. Opisano typy kultur organizacyjnych powstające w wyniku działania osobowości patologicznych oraz głębokie konsekwencje psychologiczne, które ponoszą członkowie organizacji funkcjonujący w toksycznym środowisku pracy. Analiza kończy się rekomendacjami badawczymi obejmującymi zarówno działania na polu studiów psychologicznych, jak i nauk o zarządzaniu.