Measuring Collectivism and Individualism in the Third Millennium

Abstract

The aim in this study was to validate the Auckland Individualism-Collectivism Scale (AICS) across populations from 5 different countries and identify better ways to interpret the scores. Data were collected from New Zealand, Portugal, China, Italy, and Romania. The results indicate that the AICS is not only valid but also highly reliable (α > .70). Cluster analysis identified 4 clusters: low collectivism – high individualism; high collectivism – midlevel individualism; high collectivism – high individualism; and low collectivism – low individualism. Each group included individuals from all 4 clusters. The advantages of the AICS, the use of cluster analysis in cross-cultural measures, and the importance of these measures within the psychoeducational context are discussed.

Constructs, Concept Mapping, and Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of Individualism–Collectivism

“…However, many participants in our study had high IND subscale scores, despite having grown up in the Chinese culture. In addition, our results showed there was a positive correlation between IND and COL in our study sample, suggesting the coexistence of the two seemingly opposite values (Shulruf et al, 2011).…”

“…Although individualism and collectivism are conceptual opposites, there is consistent empirical support for a moderate but positive relationship between the two concepts (Le & Stockdale, 2005;Oyserman et al, 2002;Shulruf et al, 2011). One person can simultaneously score high or low in both collectivism and individualism (Shulruf et al, 2011), suggesting that there are four potential behavioral mechanisms.…”

“…One person can simultaneously score high or low in both collectivism and individualism (Shulruf et al, 2011), suggesting that there are four potential behavioral mechanisms. (a) People who believe in both individualism and collectivism may selectively utilize each in different settings to maximize their own benefits.…”

Cross-Cultural Investigation of Compliance Without Pressure

“…In the case of Romania, even if the Hofstede (1980) Figure 1. Rate of acceptance of the target request (filling out a questionnaire) contingent on the country and the formulation used (Ciochină & Faria, 2009;Heintz, 2002;Shulruf et al, 2011). For example, using Hofstede's measure of individualism, Romania scored 30 in past time (Hofstede, 1980) but 65 nowadays (Van den Berg, 2011).…”

Culture Matters: Individualism vs. Collectivism in Conflict Decision-Making

“…The flow of the experiment is represented in Figure 3. The AICS instrument consisted of 26 items measuring traits divided between individualism and collectivism that had been previously validated and shown to be reliable with α > 0.70 [59]. Responses were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.…”