If there is any one human trait that can be agreed upon by virtually all psychologists, it is that human behavior never occurs in a vacuum. Even those psychologists who place the greatest emphasis on internal motivation, personality needs, and genetic drives consider a wide variety of external environmental forces to be drawn into the equation that ultimately leads to the formation of individual behaviors and traits. Over the past three or four decades, the field of psychology has begun to gradually recognize culture as an environmental factor that has a significant impact on human beings. In fact, researchers have found that there are few patterns of human behavior that are consistent and stable across all or most cultures (see the discussion of Ekman's facial expression study in Study 22 for an extended analysis of cross-cultural consistency). This is particularly striking in behavioral domains involving human interactions and interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal attraction, sexuality, touching, personal space, friendship, family dynamics, parenting styles, child behavioral expectations, courtship rituals, marriage, divorce, cooperation and competition, delinquency, love, and hate are all heavily influenced by cultural factors. It is safe to say that if a person's cultural background is not taken into account, then there is simply no way to get a full or accurate picture of that person.
Conceptually, culture is easy to understand, but specifically in the realm of practice, it becomes a difficult bone to chew. Imagine how you can make sense of all those intertwined, ****together cultural factors that have shaped who you are now? Most cultures are so complex that it's impossible to draw well-founded conclusions. For example, colon cancer is much less common in Japan than in the United States. Japan and the U.S. are two different cultures, so what exactly are the cultural factors that explain the difference in incidence? Is it the difference in the demand for fish? Is it the difference in the amount of rice consumed? Is it the difference in the amount of alcohol consumed? Is it differences in the pace of life and stress levels? Perhaps it is the difference in religious practices in the two countries that affects health? Is it the difference in support from relatives and friends that affects health? Or is it more likely that two, three, or all of these factors along with others*** contribute to the result? The point is that if you are going to include culture as one of the factors in a comprehensive understanding of human nature, then you need to define cultural differences in a reliable and valid way. It was on this point that Harry Trudis came to prominence in the history of modern psychology.
Beginning in the 1960s, in the Department of Psychology at the University of Chicago at Urbana-Champaign, Trondis worked to reveal and distill the fundamental characteristics of cultures and the people within their contexts, in order to differentiate and study those cultures in meaningful ways. This work has continued throughout Trudis' career life. Published in 1988, this dissertation explains and argues for the enormous contribution he made to cross-cultural psychology by articulating individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Today, this fundamental dimension of cultural difference forms the basis of hundreds of studies each year in psychology, sociology, and many other fields. In this essay, Trandis argues that particular cultures, defined in some way as individualistic or collectivistic, are determining the behavior and personality of their members in a complex and wide-ranging way.
In layman's terms, a collectivist culture is one in which the needs, desires, and accomplishments of an individual living in that culture must be subordinated to the needs, desires, and goals of the in-group to which he belongs. The in-group may be a family, a tribe, a village, a professional organization, or even an entire nation, depending on the circumstances. In these cultures, much of an individual's behavior depends on whether the behavior serves the interests of the larger group to which the individual belongs, rather than on whether the behavior provides the individual with maximum personal fulfillment. The in-groups to which people belong tend to remain stable over time, and the commitment of individuals to the groups to which they belong is usually high, even when a person's position in the group has become difficult or unpleasant for them. Individuals rely on the groups to which they belong to help them fulfill their emotional, psychological, and practical needs.
In contrast, individualistic cultures place a higher value on the happiness and fulfillment of the individual than on the needs and goals of the group to which he or she belongs. In these cultures, the influence of the group on all its members can be minimal. Individuals have little emotional attachment to the group to which they belong, and if it is too demanding, the individual prefers to leave the group and join or reorganize a new one. In individualistic cultures, individuals are rarely committed to groups, so it is common for individuals to be members of more than one group at a time. However, no group alone can exert much influence on their behavior. In that paper, Trandis and his collaborators from different cultural backgrounds describe a large number of typical collectivist and individualist cultural characteristics. All of these are summarized in Tables 7-6. Of course, these characteristics are highly generalized, so there will always be exceptions, both within collectivist and individualist cultures.
According to Trandis, individualist cultures are concentrated in Northern and Western Europe and in those countries that have historically been influenced by the Norse. In addition, the typical individualist culture shares some ****ing characteristics: having borders, large numbers of foreign immigrants, and rapid social and geographic change. "All these features tend to make group control less certain. In the United States, Australia, and Canada, a high degree of individualism is consistent with these characteristics." (P.324) He argues that most of the rest of the world belongs to a collectivist culture.
Trundis begins his article by stating:
Implicit in much of Trundis's research and writings is the assumption that when we define and interpret culture according to the "individualism-collectivism" model, this model explains most of the differences we see in human behavior, social interactions, and personality. and personality. In this article, Trundis attempts to outline the broad potential uses of his theory (see Tables 7-6) and reports on three scientific studies he has conducted to validate and clarify his theory of individualism-collectivism.
As mentioned earlier, the dissertation reports on three separate studies: the first study had all American subjects in order to more clearly define the concept of individualism as it applies to the U.S.; the second study was aimed at comparing individualist cultures (in the U.S.) with collectivist cultures (e.g., in Japan and Puerto Rico), and was centered on comparing the relationship between individuals and the groups to which they belonged in the two cultural types; and the third study was used to test the following The third study was designed to test the hypothesis that members of collectivist cultures perceive themselves to have better social support and consistently enjoy satisfactory interpersonal relationships, while members of individualist cultures report that they often feel lonely. All of this data was collected through questionnaires. Below we provide a brief description of each study and its findings.
The subjects in the first study were 300 current undergraduates in the psychology department at the University of Chicago, where Trudis is based. The researchers asked each student to complete a 158-item questionnaire that measured their tendency to engage in "individualistic-collectivistic" behaviors and beliefs. Subjects who agreed that "only those who rely on themselves can succeed in life" held an individualistic stance. If a subject agrees with the statement, "When my coworkers tell me about their privacy, we become closer," he or she holds a collectivist viewpoint. In addition, the questionnaire included five life scenarios that placed subjects in a hypothetical social situation and asked them to predict their behavior. One example provided in the paper was asking subjects to imagine that they wanted to take a long trip that other members of the group were against. Subjects were asked to what extent they would consider the opinions of their parents, spouses, relatives, close friends, acquaintances, neighbors, and co-workers when deciding whether or not to go on the trip.
Analysis of the returned questionnaires revealed that almost 50% of the variance in the subjects' responses could be explained by three factors: self-reliance, competition, and closeness to the group they were in. Only 14 percent of the variance could be explained by the factor "concern for the group." Trudis summarized the results of Study 1 as follows:
He also noted that the questionnaire's items and life stories were effective in measuring the degree of individualism in U.S. culture, but Trudis questioned whether they would be equally effective in other cultural contexts.
In that study, the question posed by the study was, "Are people in collectivist cultures more comfortable subordinating their individual needs to the needs of the collective?" The subjects were 91 University of Chicago students, 97 Puerto Rican students, 150 Japanese university students and 106 older Japanese. The questionnaire measuring collectivist traits consisted of 144 items. The questionnaire was translated into Spanish and Japanese and then given to all subjects to answer. Validated by previous research, the questionnaire's questions measured three separate tendencies regarding collectivism: caring for the group, self-group closeness, and subordinating one's own goals to those of the group.
The results of this study are inconsistent and interesting: some support the theory of individualism-collectivism, while others seem to refute it. For example, Japanese students cared more about the opinions of their classmates and friends than did Illinois students, but Puerto Rican students did not show this characteristic. In addition, although the Japanese subjects expressed pride in their group's attainment of honor, they lived their lives concerned only with the views of certain groups of which they were a part and sacrificed their own personal goals in deference to those particular group goals, rather than to all groups. Although obedience is a ***identical characteristic of collectivist cultures, Japanese subjects in fact showed less obedience to groups than did American subjects. There are results suggesting that as collectivist cultures become more enriched and westernized, they may be undergoing a shift toward individualism. As additional evidence for this view, the study found that older Japanese subjects tended to identify with the group to which they belonged more than Japanese university students.
At this point, you might ask how the results of the second study fit into Kawadis's theory. Kawadis interprets them as a warning that conclusions about collectivist and individualist cultures should not be overgeneralized, but must be carefully analyzed and selectively applied to particular behaviors, situations, and cultures. He elaborates on this idea as follows:
The third study attempts to accomplish precisely the research task that Kawandis sets out in the quote above, by limiting and refining the core of the study. The study extends previous findings that collectivist societies provide high levels of social support for their members, while individuals in individualist cultures experience loneliness to a greater extent. The collectivism-individualism questionnaire used in the study consisted of 72 items and was administered to a total*** of 100 subjects, 50/50 male and female, from the University of Chicago and the University of Puerto Rico. Subjects also completed another questionnaire to measure their perceived level of social support and loneliness.
The results of the study clearly show. There is a positive correlation between collectivism and social support, meaning that as the level of collectivism increases, the corresponding level of social support increases. And there is a negative correlation between collectivism and loneliness, meaning that as the role of collectivism increases, the level of loneliness perceived by the subjects decreases. As further evidence of Trudis's theoretical model, the most important factor (explaining the most variance) for the American students in the study was "self-reliance in competition," whereas for the Puerto Rican students, the most important factor was "fitting in" (interaction with others). interaction with others). These results are exactly what one would expect from the theory of individualism-collectivism.
Trundis explains that, in sum, the studies described in this paper both support and refine his definitions of collectivism and individualism. Looking back at the characteristics of the two culture types listed in Table 7-6, the picture that emerges seems to be one of opposites, one or the other, i.e., individualist and collectivist cultures appear to be almost completely opposed to each other. However, this paper demonstrates that these two cultural types appear to be at opposite ends of a continuum, with a particular society being at a point between the two ends, a point that is usually closer to one end of the continuum and further away from the other. In addition, specific individuals, groups, subcultures, and situations within a particular culture may deviate from the culture's general position on the continuum and move toward one end. Figure 7-2 presents a graphic representation of this explanation. Trandis notes, "In short, these empirical studies suggest that we must think of individualism and collectivism as multidimensional constructs, ...... The nature and character of each dimension depends largely on the current status of the group to which it belongs, the situational cues, and the specific behaviors being studied. " (P.336)
Despite the study's short history, Trandis' findings have become one of the foundations on which psychologists view human behavior. As you open new editions of textbooks on most branches of psychology - basic psychology, social psychology, developmental psychology, personality psychology, human sexuality, paraphilia, and cognitive psychology - you will be hard pressed to find one that doesn't deal with this study by Trondis, or the many other studies he has done on the subject of "individualism-collectivism". Arguably, the Individualism-Collectivism cultural dimension, as articulated, clarified, and distilled by Trondis, is the most reliable, valid, and influential factor in contemporary research on the role of culture in determining personality and social behavior. Moreover, the dimension can be applied to a very wide range of research areas. The following are two examples of such applications.
In this paper by Trandis, he provides evidence that the psychosocial concepts of collectivism and individualism may have a significant impact on the physical health of members of a particular culture. This study relating to coronary heart disease is a good example. In general, the incidence of heart disease is lower in collectivist societies than in individualist societies. According to Trandis, the unpleasant and stressful life conditions closely associated with heart disease are more common in individualistic cultures. In order to compete and achieve personal goals, the lone individual is under tremendous mental stress. In addition to these negative life events, the social structure of individualism inherently lacks the social cohesion and supportive forces for its members that would precisely reduce the effects of stress on human health. Of course, as discussed in the opening section of this paper, there are many factors that could explain the cultural differences that occur in the incidence of heart disease, as well as other diseases. But many studies have shown that members of collectivist cultures who move to countries with individualist cultures are also increasingly susceptible to a variety of diseases, including heart disease.
Perhaps more compelling are the differences that exist between two different subgroups within the same culture. As Kawadis points out (P327), researchers did a study with 3,000 Japanese-American subjects, focusing on comparing Japanese-business Americans who had fully adapted to the American style of life in their lifestyles and attitudes with those of Japanese Sekiguni who still maintained a traditional Japanese lifestyle. The results found that the former still had five times the incidence of heart disease as the latter, when factors such as cholesterol levels, exercise, smoking, and weight were excluded.
Of course, you might expect the "collectivism-individualism" dimension to affect differences in parenting styles between particular cultural groups, and it does. Parents in collectivist societies place greater emphasis on fostering children's "collective selves," which are characterized by obedience to group norms, obedience to the authority of the group, and reliability and consistency of behavior across time and contexts. Parents often reward children who engage in patterns of behavior that are consistent with group goals, either overtly or subtly (Triandis, 1989). Refusing to do what the group expects one to do simply because one does not like it is not acceptable in such situations, and it rarely happens. However, in highly individualistic cultures like the United States, such refusal is a normal response and is often valued and respected! This is because in an individualistic culture, parents emphasize the development of the child's "private self. This means that children are rewarded for self-reliance, independence, self-knowledge, and behaviors and attitudes that maximize their potential. Another way of looking at this difference is that in individualistic cultures, defiance (within socially acceptable limits) and a tendency to be independent are viewed as personality assets, whereas in collectivistic societies they are viewed as liabilities. The message that culture sends to children via their parents about assets or liabilities is powerful and clear, and it has a strong influence on children's development.
Trundis' work has influenced a wide range of research areas. One such article applied Trundis' theory to the study of attitudes of college fans under two cultural conditions (Snibbe et al., 2003). The researchers administered questionnaires to college students in the United States (Rose Bowl American soccer game) and Japan (Flash Bowl soccer game) who watched important soccer games and asked these college students to rate the schools and students of their team versus the opposing team before and after the soccer games, respectively. In both games, the university with the excellent academic atmosphere lost the game. However, student responses varied greatly between the two different cultures: "American college students showed a more positive attitude toward their team both before and after the game. In contrast, Japanese college students' ratings did not show favoritism toward their team. Moreover, Japanese college students' ratings of their schools reflected each university's status in the community, and students were evaluated based on their current status." (P. 581) Another study conducted a cross-cultural study of loneliness using Kawadis' theoretical model (Rokach et al., 2002). The study selected more than 1,000 subjects from North America and Spain and asked them to complete questionnaires on the causes of loneliness, which included personal deficits, developmental disabilities, lack of intimacy, migration and separation, and feelings of social exclusion. "The results suggest that the causes of loneliness are indeed influenced by cultural context. Moreover, North American subjects scored higher on these five dimensions." (P.70, additional emphasis)
Finally, one study highlights a very important aspect of Trundis' research work. When we are examining and comparing collectivism and individualism, such comparisons are by no means limited to between countries. Many countries themselves include multiple levels of subtypes of collectivism and individualism. No country in the world has more different forms of collectivism and individualism than the United States. An interesting study (Vandello & Cohen, 1999) done based on Trudis's theoretical model depicts the distribution of collectivism and individualism in the United States in graphical form. Before reading on, think about where you think the most typical individualism and collectivism would be found. The study found that the Southern hinterland of the United States has a prominent collectivist streak, while areas located in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains show a more pronounced individualist streak. However, even within these different regions, subcultural groups with different levels of individualism and collectivism can be found.
Trundis gives all the social sciences a new perspective on fundamental cultural differences. As the world becomes smaller and multiple societies and cultures become increasingly intertwined, the cultural diversity we experience directly often leads to a number of potential misunderstandings, communication barriers, conflicts, and frustrations. Awareness of and respect for cultural differences, both collectivist and individualist, has the potential to allow us to take a small but meaningful step toward the positive goal of easing cultural divisions and promoting harmony in the world.
How much land is needed for crayfish culture mainly depends on fry specifications, bottom conditions, water dept