The Hierarchical Structure of Collectivism

Realo, Anu; Allïk, Jüri; Vadi, Maaja

doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2170

Cited by 142 publications

(155 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Through theoretical and empirical support, Gelfand et al (2004) propose that this construct is indeed multidimensional, identifying two dimensions: institutional and in-group collectivism. This complements empirical research by scholars who have focused on non-kin factors of collectivism, as well as work that shows family integrity as a component that distinguishes societies (e.g., Realo et al, 1997). Javidan and his associates describe the two dimensions of collectivism.…”

Section: Societal Culture and Csr Valuesmentioning

confidence: 66%

Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: a GLOBE study of 15 countries

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines cultural and leadership variables associated with corporate social responsibility values that managers apply to their decision-making. In this longitudinal study, we analyze data from 561 firms located in 15 countries on five continents to illustrate how the cultural dimensions of institutional collectivism and power distance predict social responsibility values on the part of top management team members. CEO visionary leadership and integrity were also uniquely predictive of such values.

show abstract

Section: Societal Culture and Csr Valuesmentioning

confidence: 66%

Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: a GLOBE study of 15 countries

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants began with an initial battery of filler questionnaires, described as a survey of social attitudes. Embedded among these questionnaires was the 23-item ESTCOL collectivism scale (Realo, Allik, & Vadi, 1997) and the six-item Belief in a Dangerous World scale (Altemeyer, 1996). Three novel items were added to the Dangerous World scale to complement its face validity as a measure of chronic beliefs about vulnerability to danger in the world.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interdependence In evaluating the prediction that the increase in normative bias after exposure to adaptive challenges would be particularly strident among participants reporting a high degree of interdependent self-construals, a multiple regression was conducted with proAmerican bias as the dependent variable, and with the experimental conditions, collectivism (Realo et al, 1997), and their cross-products as the predictors. 8 Both the continuous dependent and independent variables were standardized (mean = 0, SD = 1), and the dichotomous variables for experimental conditions were dummy coded (Aiken & West, 1991).…”

Section: Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 8(4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Death Concerns and Other Adaptive Challenges: The Effects of Coalition-Relevant Challenges on Worldview Defense in the US and Costa Rica

Navarrete

2005

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A relational approach to the psychology of coalitions suggests that certain stimuli that index adaptive problems for which marshaling coalitional support is a reliably adaptive response should elicit increased support of ingroup ideology. Studies from two cultures produced results consistent with this perspective. In Study 1, Costa Rican participants contemplating coalition-relevant scenarios (i.e. social isolation or the need to enlist the help of others in a cooperative task) increased support of ingroup ideology, but that participants contemplating a mortality-salient prime did not. Study 2 replicated these results in an American sample, and explored the moderating effects of individual variation in interdependence and chronic dangerous world beliefs on normative bias. These results suggest that the determining factor cross-culturally in the elicitation of worldview defense may not be mortality concerns per se, but rather the need for coalitional support.keywords coalitional psychology, Costa Rica, interdependence, intergroup bias, terror management Group Processes & Intergroup Relations2005 Vol 8(4) [411][412][413][414][415][416][417][418][419][420][421][422][423][424][425][426][427] ACCORDING to terror management theory (TMT; Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986;Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg, 2002) death as worldviews are thought to provide a sense of purpose and meaning by giving the individual a sense of symbolic immortality through a stable belief system that is larger than the individual and persists after the individual's death. TMT advocates claim that, because the individual's worldview provides protection against death concerns, reminding individuals of the prospect of their own death should increase the need for this anxiety buffer (Greenberg et al., 1986). TMT experiments demonstrate that participants asked to contemplate their own deaths more favorably evaluate targets whose attitudes and values are similar to their own, and become less favorable to those with dissimilar views. TMT theorists claim that these changes reflect an attempt by participants to clarify their cultural worldviews, bolstering their ideologies in order to buffer themselves from the fear of death (Pyszczynski et al., 2002).While TMT has led to an impressive and creative corpus of research, a number of theoretical difficulties with the framework remain. Because such criticisms have been extensively articulated elsewhere (Boyer, 2001;Buss, 1997;Leary & Schreindorfer, 1997;Navarrete, Kurzban, Fessler, & Kirkpatrick, 2004), they will not be reprised here. Holding issues of theory aside, a key question for TMT, and one directly relevant to the data presented in this paper, is of the empirical claim that the effects engendered by mortality-salience are specific and unique to the existential problem of death. TMT proponents have explicitly argued that their experimental results are caused exclusively by the salience of death concerns (Arndt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Simon, 1997;Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, Simo...

show abstract

“…Schwartz's value dimension of Openness to Change versus Conservation is often used to measure individualism-collectivism at the individual level (e.g., Oishi, Schimmack, Diener, & Suh, 1998;Realo, Allik, & Vadi, 1997;Realo et al, 2002). Schwartz (1994) (Schwartz, 1994).…”

Section: Individualism-collectivismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship Between Social Capital and Individualism–Collectivism in Europe

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between social capital and individualism-collectivism in a sample of 50,417 individuals from 29 European countries using data from the European Social Survey Round 6 (2012). Social capital was measured in terms of generalized social trust and informal social networks; individualism-collectivism was operationalized via Schwartz's Openness to Change-Conservation value dimension.Results from a hierarchical linear modeling analysis showed that less than 10 per cent of variance in social capital indicators was found between countries, meaning that the level of social capital varies more substantively between individuals than between the countries.Openness to Change had a weak but statistically significant and positive relationship both with the indices of Generalized Social Trust and Informal Social Networks, which remained significant even when individual age, gender, education level, and domicile were controlled for. In sum, our findings show that the positive relationship between social capital and individualism that has been found at the cultural level also holds at the individual level:people who emphasize independent thought, action, and readiness to change are also more willing to believe that most people can be trusted and are more engaged in informal social networks. The relationship is, nevertheless, very weak and the strength of the association varies significantly across different European countries. This variation, however, cannot be explained by country differences in level of democracy or human development and the country's wealth moderates only the individual level relationship between Openness to Change and Informal Social Networks. Our findings suggest that sources of social capital at the individual level can be found in people's immediate social surroundings, as well as their everyday social interactions.

show abstract

The Hierarchical Structure of Collectivism

Cited by 142 publications

References 32 publications

Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: a GLOBE study of 15 countries

Cultural and leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management: a GLOBE study of 15 countries

Death Concerns and Other Adaptive Challenges: The Effects of Coalition-Relevant Challenges on Worldview Defense in the US and Costa Rica

The Relationship Between Social Capital and Individualism–Collectivism in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About