Paraphrase

Individualism and collectivism are usually conceived as independent and orthogonal constructs rather than as opposite ends of a single continuum (e.g., Oyserman et al., 2002). Hence, it would be inappropriate to assume that, for example, individualists respond in an opposite manner to collectivists. In addition, individualism and collectivism represent relatively broad sociocultural constructs, and several researchers have identified more specific subconstructs (Cross et al., 2000; Kashima et al., 1995; Oyserman et al., 2002; Realo et al., 2002). In keeping with these conceptualizations, we used previously validated measures of specific aspects of individualism and collectivism in the present research. Participants responded to the statements in these measures using 7-point Likert-type scales anchored strongly disagree and strongly agree.

The measures of individualism included agency, assertiveness, uniqueness, self-responsibility, and autonomy. Agency and assertiveness were measured using two subscales from Y. Kashima and colleagues’ (1995) Collectivism scale, which is based on the work of Yamaguchi (1994). An example item from the 7-item agency scale is “I do things in my way regardless of what my group members expect me to do.” An example item from the 5-item assertiveness scale is “I assert my opposition when I disagree strongly with the members of my group.” Uniqueness, self-responsibility, and autonomy were measured using the three subscales from Realo and colleagues’ (2002) Three-Component Individualism scale. An example item from the 7-item uniqueness scale is “I am not like other people.” An example item from the 7-item self-responsibility scale is “at meetings, I always speak out about important issues.” And, an example item from the 10-item autonomy scale is “all in all, I don't represent anyone except myself.”

The measures of collectivism included relational interdependence and collectivism. Relational interdependence was measured using Cross and colleagues' (2000) 11-item Relational Interdependent Self-Construal scale. An example item is “my close relationships are an important reflection of who I am.” Collectivism was measured using the 7-item collectivism subscale of Y. Kashima and colleagues’ (1995) Collectivism scale. An example item is, “I would rather leave my group if I have to sacrifice my self-interest for the group.”

Relationships between career maturity and self-concept, parenting style and individualism–collectivism across Australian and Thai cultural contexts were investigated. Berry’s ( 1969 ) etic-emic model for adapting instruments for cross-cultural research was applied. Derived etic status was achieved for the career planning scale, five self-concept sub-scales and the Parental Bonding Instrument. Mean score comparisons revealed few significant differences between Australia and Thailand. None of the independent variables were associated with Thai career planning. Academic and social self-concept scales and father care were related to career planning in Australia. Implications are discussed.

There was a research that explored the relation between culture and creative potential in highly educated adults. It was hypothesized that culture would influence creative potential and achievement, largely through how individualistic (citizens serving themselves) or collectivistic (citizens serving society) the society of origin was. To this end, 55 American and 56 Chinese doctoral students were surveyed concerning their creative potential, their sense of individualism or collectivism, and their Graduate Record Examination quantitative subtest scores. Americans displayed significantly higher scores on a measure of creative potential than the Chinese. As expected, Americans showed greater individualism. Chinese were more collectivistic. Chinese had significantly higher skill mastery in the domain of mathematics. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings for understanding cultural differences in creativity are considered.