Individualist-Collectivist Values: American, Indian and Japanese Cross-Cultural Study

The current study investigates the universality of Schwartz and Bilsky’s theory pertaining to value types and ascertains whether the value preferences of American, Indian and Japanese students adhere to Triandis individualist-collectivist value types. The current study employs Schwartz and Bilsky's 56-value scale to obtain a measure of preference for traditionally individualistic, collectivist and mixed value types. Schwartz and Bilsky's (1987) theory of a universal psychological structure of human values has been tested in several cultures. However, the proponents of this theory admit that theories such as theirs which “aspire to universality... must be tested in numerous culturally diverse samples” (1990, p. 878). Our study, using data from the United States, an individualistic culture, and from India and Japan, collectivist cultures, attempts to test the universality of Schwartz and Bilsky's theory, to verify empirically the conceptual value linkages proposed in the Schwartz and Bilsky study, and to ascertain whether the value preferences of American, Indian and Japanese students follow the individualist-collectivist distinction proposed by Triandis (1990). The ensuing discussion is aimed at providing a conceptual framework for the empirical investigation. Universalitv of Value Structure: The theory of a universal structure of human values was proposed by Schwartz and Bilsky in their earlier studies (1987; 1990), with a revised version presented in a recent study (Schwartz, 1992). Their Intercultural Communication Studies IX-1 Fall 99-00 Konsky, Eguchi, Blue & Kapoor 70 conceptual definition of value incorporates the five formal features of values that are recurrently mentioned in the literature. According to these features, “values (1) are concepts or beliefs, (2) pertain to desirable end states or behaviors, (3) transcend specific situations, (4) guide selection or evaluation of behaviors and events, and (5) are ordered by relative importance” (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, p. 551). Besides the formal features Schwartz and Bilsky (1987; 1990) proposed that the primary content of a value is the type of goal or motivational concern that it expresses. From three universal requirements needs of individuals as biological organisms, requirements of coordinated social interaction, and survival and welfare needs of groups eight motivation types or domains were derived: pro-social, restrictive conformity, enjoyment, achievement, maturity, self-direction, security, and power. The theory also underlined a set of dynamic relations among the motivational types of values. The proponents of the theory posited those actions taken in the pursuit of each value type have psychological, practical, and social consequences that may be compatible or may conflict with the pursuit of other value types. Schwartz and Bilsky (1987, 1990) analyzed the likelihood of conflict or compatibility between value type pairs. From this analysis, the researchers inferred a structure of relations among value types, a structure common to all humans. Schwartz and Bilsky (1987; 1990) reported that the findings for the samples studied suggested that the dynamics of conflict and compatibility among value types had much in common across the seven countries surveyed. The scholars found strong evidence of compatibility among value types that support self-reliance (selfdirection, maturity); self-enhancement (achievement, enjoyment); and self-other relations (security, restrictive conformity, pro-sociality). In 1992, Schwartz modified the early version of the theory in several ways. First, he defined three more potentially universal value types. Next, he developed the possibility that spirituality may constitute another universal type. Finally, he modified the definitions and contents of four of the earlier types (enjoyment, maturity, pro-social, and security). The modified version contained 11 value types (three more than the original eight) [Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987; 1990]. They are power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, benevolence, tradition, conformity, universalism, security, and spirituality. The authors explicate each in turn. 1. Power: Schwartz (1988) views the central goal of power values as the attainment of social status and prestige, as well as the control or dominance over people and resources. Power values are grounded in status differentiation and dominance versus subordination in interpersonal relations. The values represented in this type are: having social power, wealth, authority, social recognition, and preserving one's public image. 2. Achievement: The primary goal of this value type is identified by personal success through demonstrating competence according to prevailing social Intercultural Communication Studies IX-1 Fall 99-00 Konsky, Eguchi, Blue & Kapoor 71 standards. Values associated with achievement are ambition, being successful, capable, intelligent, and being influential. 3. Hedonism: This value type is derived from the experience of pleasure and focuses on the satisfaction of these pleasures. Values identified with hedonism are pleasure and enjoyment. 4. Stimulation: The three goals associated with this value type are excitement, novelty, and an exciting life. Schwartz explains that stimulation values are derived from the individual's need for variety, so they will be able to maintain the optimal level of activity. Leading a varied life, having an exciting and daring life are values associated with stimulation. 5. Self-Direction: Schwartz has identified independent thought and action as the defining goals. This type is derived from needs of control and mastery and interaction requirements of autonomy and independence. Values included in this type are: creativity, freedom, choosing one's own goals, curiosity, and independence. 6. Benevolence: For Schwartz the motivational goal of benevolence is preserving and improving the welfare of the people with whom one has regular personal contact. Values associated with this type are: helpfulness, responsibility, forgiving, honesty, loyalty, mature love and true friendship. 7. Tradition: Groups develop symbols and practices based on their shared experience. These become the traditions and customs valued by group members. Traditional modes of behavior reflect group unity, expression of its own work, and preemptively guarantee its survival. Traditions may take the form of religious rites, beliefs, or norms of behavior. Schwartz regards respect for, commitment to, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or religion imposes on the individual as the motivational goal. The values linked with this type are: respect for tradition, accepting one's portion in life, as well as being devout, humble, and moderate. 8. Conformity: The defining goal of this value type is restraint of behaviors, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or to harm others, as well as to violate social expectations. The values presented in this type are: obedience, self-discipline, politeness, cleanliness, the honoring of parents and elders and maintaining societal order. 9. Universalism: Schwartz lists understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and nature as motivational goals of universalism. Schwartz notes the contrast of universalism with the more narrow focus of the benevolence values. Values representing the former are equality, unity with nature, wisdom, social justice, broadmindedness, living in a world of beauty, at peace and in which the natural environment is protected. 10. Security: The motivational goal of this value type is stability of one's self, one's relationships, and of the society in which one resides. Values represented in this type are: a sense of belonging, reciprocation of favors, attaining family security, attaining national security, and social order. Intercultural Communication Studies IX-1 Fall 99-00 Konsky, Eguchi, Blue & Kapoor 72 11. Spirituality: Philosophers, sociologists, and theologians contend that customs and creeds provide life with meaning and a sense of coherence. The values included in it are: achieving inner harmony, finding meaning in life, being detached, and having a spiritual life. Table 1 Value Types and Value Traits Value Type Culture Value Trait Power Individualist Social Power, Wealth, Authority, Social Recognition, Preserving One's Public Image Achievement Individualist Ambition, Successful, Capable, Intelligent, Influential Hedonism Individualist Pleasure, Enjoyment Stimulation Individualist Varied Life, Exciting and Daring Life Self-Direction Individualist Creativity, Choosing One's Own Goal, Freedom, Curiosity, Independence, Self-Respect Benevolence Collectivist Helpfulness, Responsibility, Forgiving, Honesty, Loyalty, Mature Love, True Friendship Tradition Collectivist Respect for Tradition, Accepting One’s Portion in Life, Devout, Humble, Moderate Conformity Collectivist Obedience, Self-Discipline, Politeness, Honoring of Parents and Elders, Maintain Social Order Universalism Mixed Equality, Social Justice, Wisdom, Unity with Nature, World of Beauty, Broadmindedness, Protection of Natural Environment Security Mixed Sense of Belonging, Reciprocation of Favors, Family Security, Clean, Healthy, National Security, World at Peace. Intercultural Communication Studies IX-1 Fall 99-00 Konsky, Eguchi, Blue & Kapoor 73 Spirituality Mixed Inner Harmony, Finding Meaning in Life, Detachment, Spiritual Life. Following Schwartz’s (1992) lead, this study examines three fundamental questions which address the values linked with the 11 motivational value types: (1) Are all of the 11 value types represented in each of the three samples? (2) Are specific values linked with specific value types in the culture of the sample studied? and (3) Do any such linkages reinforce or challenge the putative universality of Schwartz and Bilsky's (1987, 1990) universal values structure theory? Individualist-collectivist typology If values are viewed as goals, then their attainment must serve the interests of the individual (Schwartz 1992). Values that serve individual interests are postulated to be opposed to those that serve collective values. The rationale behind the theory of individualism-collectivism has been developed by Triandis (1993) and others (See Hui &Triandis, 1986; Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clark, 1985; Triandis et al. 1986; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucas, 1988). Prior to these publications Hofstede (1980), after studying responses from subjects in 66 countries, identified one factor he labeled collectivism-individualism. Triandis et al. (1986, p. 261) “probing with more items and with a more refined focus on that specific construct, found four orthogonal factors that are related to collectivism-individualism: family, integrity and interdependence, which represent aspects of collectivism, and self-reliance and separation from in-groups which represent aspects of individualism." Triandis et al. (1985) also identified personality attributes that correspond with both types of cultures stressing individualist and collectivist values. Corresponding to individualism across cultures is idiocentricism, and corresponding to collectivism is allocentrism. However, Triandis further contended this analysis of the distinction should include discussion of allocentrics in individualist cultures and idiocentrics in collectivist cultures because elements of both types co-exist in a given culture. Just to what extent remains an empirical question. Collectivism is best described by family integrity and individualism by emotional detachment; interdependence and sociability best describe allocentrism while idiocentrism best describes self-reliance (Triandis, McCuskar and Hui, 1990). However, Triandis et al. (1990) warn against oversimplification insofar as cultures that stress individualist values can support allocentric ones, just as cultures that stress collectivist values can support idiocentric ones. Even within families in either culture, individual family members may prefer individualistic values with respect to such matters as achievement in school or on the job and collectivist values with respect to such matters as environmental quality. In a detailed analysis of individualism and collectivism Triandis et al. (1990) point out that these constructs can best be defined by means of several attributes. Intercultural Communication Studies IX-1 Fall 99-00 Konsky, Eguchi, Blue & Kapoor 74 Collectivists pay considerable attention to certain in-groups such as the tribe, the work group, the family or the nation and behave differently toward members of such groups than toward members of out-groups. In contrast, individualists do not perceive a sharp distinction between in-groups and out-groups. In individualist cultures if conflicts between in-groups and individual goals occur, personal goals have primacy over the in-group goals. Whereas, in collectivist cultures such conflicts tend to be resolved in favor of in-group goals as opposed to individual goals. In collectivist cultures, behavior is governed largely by in-group norms that are important determinants of social behavior. In individualist cultures individual likes and dislikes regulate behavior. Hierarchy and harmony are important when defining attributes of collectivist cultures. Confrontation and personal achievement within the in-groups are emphasized in individualist cultures. Interdependence within the in-group is emphasized in collectivist cultures, but personal fate, personal achievement and interdependence from the in-group are stressed in the individualist cultures. Thus, collectivists tend to think of groups as the basic unit of analysis, while individualists consider individuals as the basic unit of analysis. Method The instrument employed to survey the value preference of the three populations surveyed combined the values specified by Rokeach (1973) with 20 others identified by Schwartz (1992). A self-administered questionnaire was given in 1996 and 1997 to college students attending universities in the United States, India and Japan. The questionnaire was lengthy and began with value measures of individualism and collectivism from cross-cultural perspectives. The survey was conducted in classes over a period of one week. Instructors (professors) were provided complete instructions by the authors to answer any possible questions raised by respondents. Results Respondents' value orientations were assessed using a 56 item Likert-type scale adapted from a series of value estimates developed by Schwartz (1992). Using factor score coefficients as weights, an orthogonal factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted. Conceptually and empirically, these 56 items were reduced to 11 dimensions of value orientation: five indices of the “individualism” dimension, four indices of the “collectivism” dimension, and two indices of the “mixed” dimension. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on each set, and in each case only a single factor with an eigenvalue of more than 1.0 was found. The scales yielded Cronbach's alphas of at least .53 (and usually higher). The dimensions tapped by the indices are as follows: