Interactive effects of levels of individualism–collectivism on cooperation: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

Summary We examined the interactive effects of levels of individualism–collectivism (I–C) on cooperation at work by meta‐analytically combining results obtained from 201 studies, representing 225 independent samples. I–C was operationalized at the individual, organizational, and societal levels of analyses. Cooperation was conceptualized at both individual and group levels of analysis. Both cooperative behavior and performance were included as outcomes. The correlation between individual‐level I–C and cooperation/performance was stronger in collectivistic as opposed to individualistic societies. Similarly, the correlation between organizational‐level I–C and cooperation was stronger in collectivistic societies. Results also indicated that individual‐level and organizational‐level I–C, but not societal‐level I–C, were moderately related to study outcomes. Examination of other potential moderators indicated that neither study setting, I–C dimensionality, nor performance measurement type (objective vs subjective measures) altered these relations. However, a conceptual match between I–C and cooperation was a moderator such that effect sizes were generally larger when I–C and outcomes were both measured at the same level of analysis. Overall, our results indicate that I–C is both theoretically and empirically distinct across the various levels of analyses and that it may be a better predictor of outcomes in collectivistic as opposed to individualistic societies. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

How individualism–collectivism influences consumer responses to the sharing economy: Consociality and promotional type

“…Scholars have studied the influence of individualism–collectivism in the marketing context, revealing important insights about how cross‐cultural ideology can affect consumer responses to marketing efforts and stimuli (i.e., Frank, Enkawa, & Schvaneveldt, ; Hsieh, Chiu, Tang, & Lin, ; Mo, Liu, & Liu, ; Wang, ; Wien & Olsen, ; Xiao & Kim, ). As an ideological factor, individualism–collectivism is relevant in the consociality dimension of the sharing economy because it clarifies the variability in consumers’ approaches toward personal interaction (i.e., Marcus & Le, ; Mourali, Laroche, & Pons, ; Oyserman, ; Watkins & Liu, ). Namely, individualistic consumers tend to rely less on interpersonal interaction and view themselves as special and different from others, with an independent self‐construal view characterizing more self‐interests rather than group interests.…”

Good is Not Good, When Better is Expected: Discrepancies between Ideal and Actual Collectivism and their Effect on Organizational Commitment

“…It is reasonable to expect that in societal cultures that score higher in collectivism, individuals will have greater expectations and ideals of collectivism. The effects of collectivism have already been established as higher in collectivist societies (Marcus and Le, ; Noordin et al ., ). In this respect, cross‐national research could assess whether societal culture affects the achievement of ideal collectivism levels and whether the effects of the collectivism discrepancy identified here are similar in countries with different societal values of collectivism.…”

Eradicating Employment Discrimination: Toward a Cultural Values Perspective

“…Moreover, these cultural dimensions may be construed to exist at multiple levels of conceptualization, including societal, meso‐organizational, micro‐organizational (small group), and individual levels of analyses (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, ). In fact, recent meta‐analytic evidence confirms the benefit of considering multiple levels of culture (i.e., individuals embedded within larger organizations) in regard to important organizational outcomes such as cooperative behavior and task performance, such that stronger correlations between collectivism and cooperative behavior/task performance have been found when collectivistic individuals and groups are considered within the context of collectivistic societies (Marcus & Le, ).…”