Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of Individualism–Collectivism

7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism

1/18

CONSTRUCTS, CONCEPT MAPPING, AND PSYCHOMETRICASSESSMENT OF THE CONCISE SCALE OF

INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM

XINGUANGCHEN

University of Florida

JIEGONG

Wuhan Center for Disease Prevention and ControlBINYU


SHIYUELI

Wuhan University

CATHERINESTRILEY


NIANNIANYANGANDFANGLI

Wuhan Center for Disease Prevention and Control

We developed and psychometrically evaluated the Concise Scale of Individualism

Collectivism (CSIC) to support the growing need for cross-cultural research to better

understand the relationship between culture and health. To construct the scale, we used the

concept mapping technique. The CSIC contains 18 paired items, 9 of which are used to assess

respondents level of individualism and 9 to assess collectivism, rated using a 5-point Likert

scale. We evaluated the instrument using a diverse sample (N = 249, Mage = 29.64, SD =

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2015,43(4), 667-684

Society for Personality Research

http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.4.667

667

Xinguang Chen, Department of Epidemiology, University of Florida; Jie Gong, Department of

Chronic Disease, Wuhan Center for Disease Prevention and Control; Bin Yu, Department of

Epidemiology, University of Florida; Shiyue Li, Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics,

Wuhan University; Catherine Striley, Department of Epidemiology, University of Florida; Niannian

Yang and Fang Li, Department of Chronic Disease, Wuhan Center for Disease Prevention and

Control.

This study was supported through a research grant from the National Institute of Health (Award #:

R01 MH086322). We are grateful to those who participated in data collection and data processing.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Bin Yu, Department of Epidemiology,

University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA. Email: [email protected]; or to

Shiyue Li, School of Public Health, Wuhan University, 185 Donghu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430071,

Peoples Republic of China. Email: [email protected]


2/18

CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM668

7.81) consisting of rural-to-urban migrants and nonmigrant rural and urban residents in the

city of Wuhan, China. Cronbachs alpha coefficients were .91, .83, and .86 for the total CSIC

scale, and for the collectivism and individualism subscales, respectively. A 2-factor model fit

the data well, showing that both individualism and collectivism scores significantly differed

according to level of education and area of residence, and significantly predicted levels ofsocial capital, social support, resilience, and stress of respondents. We determined that the

CSIC has adequate reliability and validity for use in research to quantify cultural beliefs about

individualism and collectivism among Chinese adults.

Keywords:individualism, collectivism, health, culture, concept mapping.

Personal beliefs and values have a fundamental impact on peoples behavior,

health, and well-being (Chen, Stanton, Gong, Fang, & Li, 2009; Chen et al.,

2011; Goodwin & Hernandez Plaza, 2000; Kayser, Wind, & Ashok Shankar,2008; Realo, Allik, & Vadi, 1997; Wagner & Moch, 1986). Individualism and

collectivism are a pair of core values theorized to be opposite ends of a continuum

that can be used to characterize individuals and cultures around the world

(Brewer & Venaik, 2011; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Triandis &

Singelis, 1998; Zhang, Liang, & Sun, 2013). In an individualisticculture, the self

is considered independent; therefore, each individual can pursue his or her own

goals; personal goals take priority over the groups goals; personal rights, needs,

and attitudes, as well as contracts with others, determine behavior; communal

relationships are not emphasized, and individuals often leave relationships withwhich they are not satisfied (Triandis & Gelfand, 2012).

In direct contrast to individualism, in a collectivistic culture, the self is

considered interdependent with others; therefore, the groups goals take priority

over individuals goals; norms, obligations, and duties guide behavior; communal

relationships are common; and people attempt to resolve interpersonal problems

in a way that will maintain relationships and harmony (Kim, Sharkey, & Singelis,

1994; Oyserman et al., 2002; Triandis & Gelfand, 2012). Beyond the bipolar

conceptualization described above, another two-dimensional definition has been

used to categorize the individualismcollectivism continuum into the followingfour components: horizontal individualism, involving being unique and following

ones own wishes; vertical individualism, involving being unique but accepting

competition to be valuable; horizontal collectivism, involving being an equal and

valued part of a group; and vertical collectivism, involving being submissive to

within-group authorities (Triandis, 2001).

Numerous instruments are available for assessing individualismcollectivism

(Probst, Carnevale, & Triandis, 1999; Taras et al., 2014), 10 of the most commonly

used of which are listed in the Appendix. An evaluation of these instruments

revealed that few can be used directly for cross-cultural psychological and

behavioral research, because of several limitations.


3/18

CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM 669

First, some of these scales consist of a large number of measurement items.

One example is the AllocentricIdiocentric Tendencies Scale (Triandis et al.,

1985), which contains 132 items, and may take as long as 15 to 20 minutes

for individuals with a limited education to complete. In addition, although

the reliability of most subscales has been found to be adequate, no reliability

measure (e.g., Cronbachs alpha coefficient) has been provided for the scale as

a whole. Second, a number of scales are available that contain fewer items, but

their reliability has not been proven because of the lack of, or relatively low,

Cronbachs alpha values that have been reported. For example, the alpha value

for Yamaguchis Collectivism Scale (Yamaguchi & Sugimori, 1992) was found

to be only .63. Finally, the validity of several of these scales is also unproven.

For example, the relationship between the IndividualismCollectivism Index

(Vandello & Cohen, 1999) and social capital has been reported as positive in

some studies (Allik & Realo, 2004), but negative in others (McBride, 1998;

Realo & Beilmann, 2012).

In addition to the limitations described above, the majority of the published

scales were developed and validated in individualistic cultures and in countries

where the residents earn a high income (Chen, 2007; Steele & Lynch, 2013).

It is, therefore, unclear whether or not these instruments would be reliable and

valid for use in China, a country well-known for its long history of advocacy for

collectivism among its people. Values and beliefs of people in China regarding

the self, goals, norms, attitudes, relationships, and behavior may significantlydiffer from those in countries where individualism is advocated (Oyserman et

al., 2002; Triandis & Gelfand, 2012). In addition, China has experienced rapid

economic and technological growth since the reforms of the late 1970s began.

Thus, there is a growing need for cross-cultural research on cultural beliefs,

behavior, and health, and for the development of better tools for measuring

individualismcollectivism in the context of China in the early 21st century

(Chen, 2007).

To support this research, in which our aim was to develop the Concise Scale

of IndividualismCollectivism (CSIC), we operationalized the definition ofindividualism as a set of norms, values, and behavioral beliefs reflecting the

notion that all individuals in a society and the universe are born to be independent

(Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995). Therefore, people who believe

in individualism will promote the values of autonomy, personal uniqueness,

personal efficiency, self-decision making, and personal benefits (Triandis, 1994).

Consequently, these people are more likely to rate their own value and success

based on what they have achieved (Hofstede, 1980; Oyserman et al., 2002).

In previous studies, researchers have shown that believing in individualism

is associated with lower social capital (McBride, 1998), less social support(Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988), and greater stress (Allik

& Realo, 2004; Triandis et al., 1988). Following these study findings, we


4/18


hypothesized that believing in individualism may also be associated with low

levels of resilience, which is the ability to adapt and to overcome risks and

adversity. The development of resilience often involves group collaboration

and joint activities (Allik & Realo, 2004), whereas individualism promotes

independence and discourages group cohesion (Hofstede, 1980).

In direct contrast to individualism, we operationalized the definition of

collectivismas a set of norms, values, and behavioral beliefs reflecting the notion

that all individuals in a society are born to be connected with each other (Triandis,

1994; Triandis et al., 1995). As a result, individuals who believe in collectivism

are more likely to treat each other as part of a group, and to pursue in-group

coherence, cooperation, and collaboration (Kim et al., 1996; Singelis & Brown,

1995). These people will tend to seek advice from others when confronted with

difficulties and be willing to sacrifice their own benefits for group interests (Kimet al., 1994; Triandis, 1994). Collectivists tend to rate the recognition by peers

and society highly when assessing their own values (Oyserman et al., 2002).

Previous researchers have documented the protective effect of collectivism

on health and social well-being. People who believe in collectivism have high

social capital (Realo & Beilmann, 2012), more social network connections than

do those who are not collectivists, and are more likely than people who are not

collectivists to receive social, emotional, and instrumental support from others

when needed (Cordero, 2011; Goodwin & Hernandez Plaza, 2000). People who

are procollectivism also show high levels of resilience (Bandura, 2000; Kayseret al., 2008), and are less likely than others are to experience stress (Triandis et

al., 1988).

Although individualism and collectivism are conceptual opposites, there is

consistent empirical support for a moderate but positive relationship between

the two concepts (Le & Stockdale, 2005; Oyserman et al., 2002; Shulruf et al.,

2011). One person can simultaneously score high or low in both collectivism

and individualism (Shulruf et al., 2011), suggesting that there are four potential

behavioral mechanisms. (a) People who believe in both individualism and

collectivism may selectively utilize each in different settings to maximize theirown benefits. (b) People who embrace neither individualism nor collectivism

may be at increased risk of health problems. (c) Individuals who disbelieve

in collectivism will be less likely than those who believe in collectivism to

interact with others, reducing their likelihood for social capital accumulation

and resilience development, and lacking social support to use as a buffer against

stress. (d) Individuals who disbelieve in individualism will have low motivation

for success and, thus, an increased likelihood of failure in career and life, which

may lead to stress and associated health issues.

Capitalizing on the progress made in previous research regarding individualism

and collectivism, our purpose in this study was to develop a new scale that


5/18


had a small number of items ( 20 items) and demonstrated good reliability

(Cronbachs alpha .80) and validity. The ultimate goals in this study were to

provide a new tool for use in research in China, and to advance cross-cultural

understanding of individualism and collectivism as they relate to peoples

behavior, health, and well-being.

Method

Participants

The main characteristics of the study sample are presented in Table 1. The final

sample comprised 249 adults recruited in Wuhan, China.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample

Variable Men Women Total

Total sample, n(%) 83 (33.33) 166 (66.67) 249 (100.00)

Area of residence, n(%)

Rural-to-urban migrants 26 (31.33) 51 (30.72) 77 (30.92)

Rural residents 28 (33.73) 64 (38.56) 92 (36.95)

Urban residents 29 (34.94) 51 (30.72) 80 (32.13)

Age (years)

Mean (SD) 29.23 (6.95) 29.84 (8.22) 29.64 (7.81)

Marital status, n (%)

Married 41 (49.40) 101 (60.84) 142 (57.03) Other 42 (50.60) 65 (39.16) 107 (42.97)

Level of education, n(%)

Middle school or less 27 (32.53) 60 (36.14) 87 (34.94)

High school 24 (28.92) 56 (33.74) 80 (32.13)

College or higher 32 (38.55) 50 (30.12) 82 (32.93)

Monthly income (RMB), n(%)

< 500a 14 (17.07) 41 (26.11) 55 (23.01)

500999 21 (25.61) 31 (19.75) 52 (21.76)

10001999 20 (24.39) 56 (35.67) 76 (31.80)

2000 27 (32.93) 29 (18.47) 56 (23.43)

Note.aIn 2012, US$1 = approximately RMB 6.

We purposefully selected a diverse sample to enhance the generalizability of

the developed scale. Wuhan is a metropolitan city and the capital city in Hubei

Province. It consists of both urban and rural areas, and has a population of

approximately 10 million people comprising urban residents, rural residents, and

rural-to-urban migrants.

The rural-to-urban migrant residents were recruited at the Wuhan Center

for Disease Prevention and Control from among those migrants who werevisiting for a physical check-up for employment purposes, the nonmigrant rural


6/18


resident group was drawn from residents in a rural village, and the nonmigrant

urban participants were residents in consecutive households of one street in

the downtown area of Wuhan. We selected one participant per household. For

households with two or more eligible participants, one was selected using the

random digits method. Among the participants we approached, 92% of the urban

residents and 95% of the rural-to-urban migrants and rural residents agreed to

participate.

Instrument

The Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism consists of 18 items set out

as nine pairs (see Table 2 for item content). Participants rate their responses on

a standard 5-point Likert scale, with response options ranging from 1 (totally

disagree) to 5 (totally agree). To construct the scale, we used the conceptmapping technique (Rosas & Camphausen, 2007), a top-down approach for

item development that has been found to enhance reliability and validity. After

the establishment of the conceptual framework, the lead author composed a

set of draft items by adopting six items from published scales that were highly

consistent with the conceptual framework we used to develop the CSIC (see

Table 2). Following the style of these adopted items, the lead author then drafted

a further 12 items and circulated them among the team members for feedback and

revision to produce the pilot instrument. We carefully worded individual items

to maximize the discriminative sensibility and minimize culture-specificity. Thepilot version was tested with a sample of 12 adults, after which we conducted

further revisions to produce the final version of the CSIC.

Procedure

Data were collected using the audio computer-assisted self-interviewing

technique. The individual CSIC items were randomly ordered and then embedded

in the Migration and Behavioral Health Survey (Chen et al., 2009; Triandis,

2001). The participants completed the survey in a private room or a room of the

participants preference. Three trained data collectors from the Wuhan Center forDisease Prevention and Control (CDC) were in charge of the data collection. All

participants signed an informed consent form before completing the survey. The

study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Wuhan CDC

in China, and the Human Investigation Committees at Wayne State University

and University of Florida, USA.

Measures

The six variables used for construct validity assessment were age (in years),

gender (male/female), marital status (married or other), area of residence(rural, urban, or rural-to-urban migrant), level of education ( middle school,


7/18


high school, college or higher), and monthly income (in Chinese RMB;

.90, comparative fit index (CFI) > .90, root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA) < .05, ratio of chi square to degrees of freedom (2/df) < 2.0.

We assessed construct validity by comparing individualism (IND) scores and

collectivism (COL) scores across groups with Students ttests (for dichotomous

variables) or F tests (for variables with three or more levels). We assessed

predictive validity with analysis of variance (ANOVA). Four comparison groups

were generated using the median IND and COL scores as the cutoff point to

produce (a) low IND and low COL (LILC), (b) high IND and low COL (HILC),

(c) low IND and high COL (LIHC), and (d) high IND and high COL (HIHC).

Effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for both t test

(Cohens d) and ANOVA (2) results. A type I error of p< .05 was applied to


8/18


all psychometric assessments. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS

version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

Item Sensibility and Scale Constructs

Results in Table 2 indicate high sensibility of the individual CSIC items.

Table 2. Items in the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism

Items M(SD) Mdn(IQR)

Individualism (IND)

IND1: All individuals in the society are absolutely independent from

each other. 3.38 (1.22) 4.00 (2.00)

IND2: Individuals are much more important than the group. 2.93 (1.20) 3.00 (2.00)

IND3: Everyone must put his/her own interests first. 3.22 (1.13) 3.00 (2.00)

IND4: One can do better by working alone than in a group. a 3.21 (1.19) 3.00 (2.00)

IND5: Groups, including the government, should not interfere with

personal behavior. 3.12 (1.19) 3.00 (2.00)

IND6: The value of a person is solely determined by his/her personal

achievements. 3.59 (1.09) 4.00 (1.00)

IND7: A person must follow only his/her own ideas of how to act and

behave. 3.33 (1.13) 3.00 (2.00)

IND8: It is more than enough to focus only on ones own business.d 3.65 (1.06) 4.00 (1.00)

IND9: It is essential to maintain ones personal characteristics in workand daily life.d 3.89 (0.99) 4.00 (2.00)

Collectivism (COL)

COL1: All individuals in a society are closely related to each other. 4.03 (0.91) 4.00 (1.00)

COL2: Individuals may not be able to survive if there is no group

or country. 3.90 (1.01) 4.00 (2.00)

COL3: To ensure group interests are met, self-interests must

be sacrificed.d 3.22 (1.10) 3.00 (2.00)

COL4: An individuals talents can be realized only through teamwork/

group collaboration. 3.91 (0.95) 4.00 (2.00)

COL5: Individuals should be unconditionally submissive to thegroup and nation. 3.65 (1.14) 4.00 (1.00)

COL6: The value of a person is determined primarily by assessments

of oneself that are made by others and the society. 3.51 (1.08) 4.00 (1.00)

COL7: Every one of us must consult others about how to act

and behave.b 3.36 (1.14) 4.00 (2.00)

COL8: It is much more important to help others than it is to mind

your own business.c 3.40 (1.11) 4.00 (1.00)

COL9: One must conform to the opinion of the majority in work

and daily life. 3.65 (1.00) 4.00 (1.00)

Note. aderived from Triandis et al. (1990), bderived from Oyserman et al. (2002), cderived fromSingelis (1994), and dderived from Singelis et al. (1995). IQR = interquartile range.


9/18


Results from the CFA indicated that the proposed two-factor 18-item structure

of the CSIC (see Figure 1) was supported by the data, and there was a significant

correlation between the two subscales of IND and COL.

IND1

IND2

IND3

IND4

IND5

IND6

IND7

IND8

IND9

COL1

COL2

COL3

COL4

COL5

COL6

COL7

COL8

COL9

IND COL

.54**

.56**

.52**

.68**

.67**

.70**

.71**

.61**

.60**

.69**

.60**

.65**

.56**

.42**

.63**

.57**

.59**

.68**

.49**

Figure 1. CFA modeling of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism.

Note.Datamodel fit: GFI = .90, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .07, Chi square/df= 2.23.*p< .05, **p< .01.

Reliability and Validity Assessments

Cronbachs alpha coefficients were .91, .86, and .83 for the total CSIC scale,

and for the IND and COL subscales, respectively, suggesting excellent reliability

for the CSIC as a whole and very good reliability for both IND and COL

subscales. Results from the construct validity analysis set out in Table 3 show

that the IND scores were higher for older participants, and for participants with

a higher income, and lower for participants with a higher level of education, and

for those who resided in urban areas. COL scores were lower for participants with

a higher level of education, and for those who resided in urban areas.


10/18


Table 3. Construct Validity Analysis Results: Differences in IND and COL Scores Across

Subgroups

Variables N IND scores COL scores

M (SD) M (SD)

Gender

Male 83 30.48 (7.13) 32.58 (6.49)

Female 162 30.26 (7.06) 32.67 (6.03)

t(df)p .23 (244) .82 -.11 (244) .92

d[95% CI] .03 [-.86, .92] -.01 [-.79, .76]

Age

< 30 years 138 29.53 (7.03) 32.09 (6.15)

30 years 107 31.37 (7.01) 33.35 (6.17)

t(df)p -2.04 (244) .04 -1.59 (244) .11

d[95% CI] -.26 [-1.14, .62] -.20 [-.98, .57]

Marital status

Married 139 31.19 (7.04) 33.14 (6.36)

Other 106 29.21 (6.97) 31.97 (5.90)

t(df)p 2.42 (244) .09 1.09 (244) .34

d[95% CI] .28 [-.59, 1.16] .19 [-.58, .96]

Level of education

Middle school 85 33.35 (7.24) 34.46 (6.84)

High school 79 29.86 (6.18) 31.54 (6.07)

College or more 81 27.63 (6.53) 31.79 (5.09)

F(df)p 15.52 (2, 242) .001 5.92 (2, 242) .001

2[95% CI] .11 [.05, .19] .05 [.01, .10]

Area of residence

Rural 88 32.86 (7.13) 33.97 (6.82)

Migrant 77 29.99 (7.13) 32.87 (6.59)

Urban 80 27.89 (6.00) 30.95 (4.47)

F(df)p 11.43 (2, 242) .001 5.25 (2, 242) .01

2[95% CI] .09 [.03, .15] .04 [.00, .10]

Monthly income (RMB)

< 500 55 29.60 (6.72) 31.84 (5.21)

500999 51 30.59 (7.57) 33.22 (6.04)

10001999 75 29.47 (7.38) 32.08 (6.91)

> 2000 55 32.75 (6.13) 34.24 (6.24)

F(df)p 2.74 (3, 241) .04 1.84 (3, 241) .14

2[95% CI] .03 [.00, .08] .02 [.00, .06]

Note.In 2012, US$1 = approximately RMB 6.

Predictive Validity Analysis

The ANOVA results in Table 4 indicate that the CSIC significantly predicted

levels of social capital, social support, resilience, and stress among the

participants.

Among the four groups, HILC participants scored the lowest for social capital,

social support, and resilience, and the highest for stress. In contrast, the same


11/18


Table

4.

Pre

dictive

Va

lidity

Ana

lys

isResu

lts:

Meansan

dStan

dard

D

ev

iationso

fDifferences

Amon

gCo

llec

tiv

ism

/In

dividua

lismG

roups

Variables

LILC

LIHC

HILC

HIHC

F(df)p

2

[95%

CI]

Socialca

pital

Totalcapital

25.9

6(5.2

8)a

26.3

6(4.1

0)a

22.5

7(4

.53)b

26.3

3(6.1

3)a

2.8

0(3,

241)

.040

.03

[.00,.0

8]

Bondi

ngcapital

14.2

6(2.6

8)

14.7

2(2.0

0)

12.9

9(2

.15)

14.1

6(2.6

8)

2.4

1(3,

241)

.070

.03

[.00,.0

7]

Bridgingcapital

11.6

9(3.8

6)

11.6

4(2.9

1)

9.5

8(3

.63)

12.1

7(4.3

2)

2.4

7(3,

241)

.060

.03

[.00,.0

7]

Socialsu

pport

Total

38.0

2(8.9

2)b

38.4

2(8.4

5)b

34.9

5(9

.00)c

42.5

8(11.3

6)a

5.1

4(3,

241)

.002

.06

[.01,.1

2]

Inform

ational

13.2

2(3.1

5)b

13.7

1(3.5

9)b

12.4

2(3

.55)c

14.7

2(4.0

8)a

3.4

1(3,

241)

.018

.04

[.00,.0

9]

Instrumental

12.0

9(3.7

2)b

11.9

5(3.4

7)b

11.0

0(3

.80)c

13.5

6(4.4

0)a

3.9

8(3,

241)

.009

.05

[.00,.1

0]

Emoti

onal

12.9

3(3.3

2)b

12.7

6(3.0

9)b

11.5

3(2

.86)c

14.3

0(4.1

2)a

4.9

1(3,

241)

.003

.06

[.01,.1

1]

Resilience

Total

32.7

4(6.9

1)c

36.0

5(5.8

5)b

29.6

8(7

.36)d

39.1

2(7.2

7)a

16.9

0(3,

241)

Documents

Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of Individualism–Collectivism