Abstract
The essence of individualism and collectivism are cultural traditions that have some basis in common. Idiocentrism, allocentrism and in-group statements are constructs at an individual level which corresponds to both collectivism and individualism cultures respectively. Aiming to evaluate the self-concepts amongst culture specifically, individualism, three hypotheses in line with individualistic culture would be made in this study; a positive correlation with idiocentrics, a negative correlation with group statements and finally no correlation between allocentrics. A Pearson’s (r) correlation analysis was utilised in this study, intended to seek any relationships between these self-concepts and cultures in particular, individualism. 310 first-year students of various nationalities aged between 17 to 56 years from a particular university had come forward to participate in the condensed version of the Twenty-Statement-Test, generating results which supported the hypotheses to a certain degree. The results of this study indicates an increased individualism rating would lead to an inclination of indiocentrism but correspondingly, presented a declination in allocentrism and group statements in the same scenario. It is thus, inferable from the statistical findings that self-concepts can exist within individualistic cultures.
Self-Concepts within Individualistic Cultures
Individualistic and collectivism have been a focal point for researchers (Kim, 1995). The differences within these cultures have been intriguing to researchers as well and these are self-concepts characterised into idiocentricism, allocentrism and group (Triandis, 2018). These self-concepts are malleable as different segments of individuals can be salient at different cultures (Markus & Kunda, 1986). According to Matsumoto and Juang (2017), culture is the customary ideas and social behaviours shared by a group and transmitted across generations, fulfilling the essentials of survival, contentment and well-being. Individualism in simple terminology, tends to see individuals whose ties with the societies are loose and independent, whereby everyone would be expected to safeguard their self-interests or their immediate family members only (Husted & Allen, 2008). Collectivists, in stark contrast, finds people in close-knitted, strong, inter-dependent and cohesive societies which offers assurance in safeguarding their interests in exchange for their unquestionable allegiance (Peterka-Benton & Benton, 2014). Individualism are predominantly noticed in western civilisations like the United States (US) while traditionally, collectivism is observed in Asian countries such as China under the influence of Confucianism (Ip, 2009).
Self-concept is the idea of any individual’s self-construction from the beliefs one holds personally and from the response of others (Hattie, 2014). Matsumoto and Juang (2017) referred to culture as one of the most psychologically powerful tool, essential and an integral part of our lives, helping an individual’s perceive oneself and the environment he is in. Idiocentrics tend to view themselves as independent, prioritising their own self-interests over the goals of the general population (Nahum-Shani & Somech, 2011). Allocentrism, contrarily, and sometimes intertwined with collectivism, specifically places importance in the interdependent self, especially emphasising on the norms, duties and obligations (Zourrig, Chebat & Toffoli, 2009). In a group setting, individuals tends to emphasise their sense of belonging towards a particular group or association (Dash, Bruning & Acharya, 2009).
This study is aimed at determining any relationships between the individualistic culture and the three self-concepts. This would be conducted by evaluating the correlational differences through the three hypotheses relating to self-concepts within individualism, in this case; a positive correlation between idiocentrism, a negative correlation with group and no relationship between allocentrism.
Method
Participants
The participants consisted of 310 students (227 females, 78 males) undergoing a first-year undergraduate psychology programme specifically, a culture and psychology introductory module in the same university. Coming from many walks of life, some students were enrolled full-time while others were part-time students holding on to full-time employment in various industries. Forming a diverse age bracket, their age ranges from 17 to 56 years at a mean of 23.8 years. The nationalities of the participants varied into three broad categories with a majority 50.6% being Australians, 23.5% Singaporeans and the remaining 25.9% were classified under various nationalities.
Materials
A condensed version of the Twenty Statement Test (TST) which consisted of only seven statements starting with “I am’ instead of the initial 20 was utilised in this study. This TST was renamed into the “I am test” and the rationale behind condensing the TST was that time was a crucial factor in this survey since the participants were only given a stipulated time-frame to complete the questionnaire. Renaming the TST also simulates a blinded study so that the participants would not know what these statements would be used for.
Procedure
The “I am test” were handed to the students during their first lecture. Given approximately 10 minutes to complete them, the lecturer attempted to ease everyone’s tension by noting that the design of this test would be ideal for an ice-breaking session and getting to know participants of the same cohort. However, accounting for greater accuracy, they were not given full disclosure on what this exercise would be used for. These completed tests were collected by the lecturer after the end of the first lecture to prevent any alterations which could lead to discrepancies, potentially affecting the validity of the intended results.
The participants would have better understanding of the self-concepts amongst cultures subsequently, especially by the third session. These tests were returned to them but now, they were explicitly instructed to exchange their copies with other participants to have theirs peer-reviewed. During this discussion, they were also told to indicate their country of origin and their individualism rating against the number of idiocentric, allocentric and group statements they had made in the first lecture session. The responses were then extrapolated into a SPSS software, generating the data for further analysis.
Results
To assess the size and direction of the relationship between Individualism Index rating and the three variables: idiocentric answer score, group answer score and allocentric answer score, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was calculated. All relationships were found to be significant.
A strong positive relationship was found between Individualism Index rating and idiocentric statement score, r (308) = .61, p < .01, 2 tailed, supporting the first hypothesis that the number of idiocentric statements increases as the Individualism Index rating increases.
A moderate negative relationship was found between Individualism Index rating and group answers score, r (308) = -.55, p < .01, 2-tailed. This finding supports the second hypothesis that the number of group answers decreases as the Individualism Index rating increases
A weak negative relationship was found between Individualism Index rating and allocentric answers score, r (308) = -.32, p < .01, 2-tailed. This finding failed to support the third hypothesis that there would be no relationship, indicating instead that the number of allocentric answers decreases as the Individualism Index rating increases.
Discussion
The statistical findings were consistent alongside the first and second hypotheses but not the third hypothesis. The significant results puts forward a perception indicating that these self-concepts does indeed exists within cultures in particular, individualism. However, a correlational study only uncovers the relationship between variables, it does not establish the causation effect and conclusive reasons for these relationships (Simon & Goes, 2013). Nonetheless, the latter’s study also stated that these kinds of studies paves its way for future researches, utilising factor analysis to narrow down the categories of self-concepts within any particular culture.
Idiocentrism, on a comparable scale with individualism, shares several similar traits such as independence, egocentric and prioritising their own goals over others (Zourrig, Chebat & Toffoli, 2009). Hence, the results supported the first hypothesis and especially with Triandis, Leung, Villareal and Clack’s (1985) study, indicating that idiocentrics are likely associated with individualistic societies as compared to their collectivist counterparts.
Group, contrastingly, has a moderately weaker negative relationship since group individual places importance towards group goals rather than personal needs (Triandis 1972). Javidan, House, Dorfman, Hanges and De Luque (2006) noticed that in-groups are usually correlated with collectivistic societies, with the eagerness to express their in-group loyalty, pride and unitedness within their organisations and families. Watkins and Liu (1996) noticed individualistic societies on the other hand, tend to subordinate their group needs as compared to their personal goals. Hence, the results supported the second hypothesis.
However, it does not support the third hypothesis, presenting a decrease in allocentrism as individualism increases. It was noticed that individuals from a collectivist background tend to exhibit allocentric attributes (Triandis, McCusker & Hui, 1990). Triandis (2018) observed people in China demanding for human rights are usually idiocentrics in a collectivistic culture while people in the US joining communes are probably allocentrics in an individualistic society. One assumption could be the enculturation of allocentric migrants from collectivistic civilisations as they attempt to assimilate into various individualistic societies and losing their allocentric attributes in the process.
Ideally, the participants were assumed to be of similar educational background since they belonged to the same university. A wide range of participants also broadens the possible data range, generating reliability with greater precision. However, a drawback in this area would be the small male sample size comprising of a mere 25.20% of the overall sample. This might actually affect the reliability of the study due to the higher degree of variability and in return, might not be an ideal representation of the general male population. In mitigation, this study can also be extended to courses with a higher male-female ratio, creating an equilibrium amongst the genders.
Undoubtedly, the TST, through several successful utilisation in case studies over the years, substantiated its reliability in identifying the contents among the self-concepts (Carpenter & Meade-Pruitt, 2008). Condensing the TST to only seven statements however, might not actually capture the full data range this test was originally intended for. Moreover, with the pressure to produce socially desirable statements, there are tendencies for the participants to write fictitious statements about themselves (Randall & Fernandes, 1991). This might result in response biasness and affecting the validity of the intended results. According to Steffens (2004), an Implicit Association Test (IAT) would be an ideal substitution as this measures the cognitive processes which are supposed to be, making the participants less susceptible to faking answers.
Conclusively, this study demonstrated the existence of self-concepts within individualism to a certain degree. Perhaps, as one dwells deeper into the self-concepts within cultures, researchers may consider conducting pro-social observational studies designed to reflect the individuals’ real-life actions from its natural ambience (Wildermuth, 2016). Alongside the inclusion of a double-blinded experiment, this would help increase the validity of the results due to its anonymity amongst the participants and researchers.
References
Carpenter, S., & Meade-Pruitt, S. M. (2008). Does the twenty statements test elicit
self-concept aspects that are most descriptive?. World Cultures eJournal, 16(1).
Dash, S., Bruning, E., & Acharaya, M. (2009). The effect of power distance and
individualism on service quality expectations in banking: a two-country individual-and national-cultural comparison. International journal of bank marketing, 27(5), 336-358. doi: 10.1108/02652320910979870
Hattie, J. (2014). Self-concept. New York: Psychology Press.
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2008). Toward a model of cross-cultural business
ethics: The impact of individualism and collectivism on the ethical decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 293-305.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9888-8
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & De Luque, M. S. (2006)
Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: a comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of international business studies, 37(6), 897-914. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2010.62
Ip, P. K. (2009). Is Confucianism good for business ethics in China? . Journal of
Business Ethics, 88(3), 463-476. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0120-2
Kim, U. (1995). Individualism and collectivism: A psychological, cultural and
ecological analysis (No. 21). Denmark: NAIS Publications.
Markus, H., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 51(4), 858. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.858
Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2017). Culture and psychology. (6). Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
Nahum-Shani, I., & Somech, A. (2011). Leadership, OCB and individual differences:
Idiocentrism and allocentrism as moderators of a relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and OCB. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 353-366. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.010
Peterka-Benton, D., & Benton, B. (2014). Effects of cultural collectivism on terrorism
favorability. Journal of Applied Security Research, 9(1), 17-40.
doi: 10.1080/19361610.2014.852001
Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The socially desirability response bias in
ethics research. Journal of business ethics, 10(11), 805-817. doi: 10.1007/BF00383696
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Scope, limitations and delimitations.
Steffens, M. C. (2004). Is the implicit association test immune to faking?.
Experimental psychology, 51(3), 165-179. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.51.3.165
Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture.
Triandis, H. C. (2018). Individualism and collectivism. New York: Routledge.
Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clark, F. I. (1985). Allocentrics versus
idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discrimination validation. Journal of Research in personality, 19(4), 395-415. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(85)90008-X
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of
individualism and collectivism. Journal of personality and social psychology, 59(5), 1006). doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1006
Watkins, H. S., & Liu, R. (1996). Collectivism, individualism and in-group
Membership: implications for consumer complaining behaviour in multicultural contexts. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8(3-4),
69-96. doi: 10.1300/J046v08n03_05
Wildermuth, B. M. (2016). Applications of social research methods to questions in
information and library science. ABC-CLIO.
Zourrig, H., Chebat, J. C., & Toffolo, R. (2009). Consumer revenge behavior: a
cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 995-1001.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.08.006