{"title":"审视亚洲 35 年来的个人主义-集体主义研究:元分析","authors":"Sang-Yeon Kim","doi":"10.1016/j.ijintrel.2024.101988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Traditionally, research in communication and culture (e.g., “cross-cultural communication,” “intercultural communication,” “international communication”) has examined the notions of individualism (IND) and collectivism (COL) extensively. However, the results of these studies are sometimes inconsistent, as documented in previous meta-analyses. This study posits that the theory-data inconsistency can be attributed to accelerated globalization, particularly, improved economic and political situations within traditionally under-developed or developing Asian nations. To examine this prediction, 99 IND-COL studies published between 1988 and 2023 were compiled that compared the U.S. to Asian countries (<em>N</em> = 87,735, <em>k</em><sub>IND</sub> = 131, <em>k</em><sub>COL</sub> = 156), and augmented with national-level socio-political indices (i.e., percent of urban population, gross domestic product, democracy) as predictors of the IND-COL effects. Partially consistent with this study’s prediction, Asian nations with improved socio-political conditions manifested a decline in collectivism. However, these improvements with time did <em>not</em> predict an increase in individualism. The results are discussed in relation to the theoretical definitions of IND and COL, and the limitations of the traditional approach to understanding cross-cultural differences.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48216,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Intercultural Relations","volume":"100 ","pages":"Article 101988"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining 35 years of individualism-collectivism research in Asia: A meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Sang-Yeon Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijintrel.2024.101988\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Traditionally, research in communication and culture (e.g., “cross-cultural communication,” “intercultural communication,” “international communication”) has examined the notions of individualism (IND) and collectivism (COL) extensively. However, the results of these studies are sometimes inconsistent, as documented in previous meta-analyses. This study posits that the theory-data inconsistency can be attributed to accelerated globalization, particularly, improved economic and political situations within traditionally under-developed or developing Asian nations. To examine this prediction, 99 IND-COL studies published between 1988 and 2023 were compiled that compared the U.S. to Asian countries (<em>N</em> = 87,735, <em>k</em><sub>IND</sub> = 131, <em>k</em><sub>COL</sub> = 156), and augmented with national-level socio-political indices (i.e., percent of urban population, gross domestic product, democracy) as predictors of the IND-COL effects. Partially consistent with this study’s prediction, Asian nations with improved socio-political conditions manifested a decline in collectivism. However, these improvements with time did <em>not</em> predict an increase in individualism. The results are discussed in relation to the theoretical definitions of IND and COL, and the limitations of the traditional approach to understanding cross-cultural differences.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48216,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Intercultural Relations\",\"volume\":\"100 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101988\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Intercultural Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147176724000579\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Intercultural Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147176724000579","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Examining 35 years of individualism-collectivism research in Asia: A meta-analysis
Traditionally, research in communication and culture (e.g., “cross-cultural communication,” “intercultural communication,” “international communication”) has examined the notions of individualism (IND) and collectivism (COL) extensively. However, the results of these studies are sometimes inconsistent, as documented in previous meta-analyses. This study posits that the theory-data inconsistency can be attributed to accelerated globalization, particularly, improved economic and political situations within traditionally under-developed or developing Asian nations. To examine this prediction, 99 IND-COL studies published between 1988 and 2023 were compiled that compared the U.S. to Asian countries (N = 87,735, kIND = 131, kCOL = 156), and augmented with national-level socio-political indices (i.e., percent of urban population, gross domestic product, democracy) as predictors of the IND-COL effects. Partially consistent with this study’s prediction, Asian nations with improved socio-political conditions manifested a decline in collectivism. However, these improvements with time did not predict an increase in individualism. The results are discussed in relation to the theoretical definitions of IND and COL, and the limitations of the traditional approach to understanding cross-cultural differences.
期刊介绍:
IJIR is dedicated to advancing knowledge and understanding of theory, practice, and research in intergroup relations. The contents encompass theoretical developments, field-based evaluations of training techniques, empirical discussions of cultural similarities and differences, and critical descriptions of new training approaches. Papers selected for publication in IJIR are judged to increase our understanding of intergroup tensions and harmony. Issue-oriented and cross-discipline discussion is encouraged. The highest priority is given to manuscripts that join theory, practice, and field research design. By theory, we mean conceptual schemes focused on the nature of cultural differences and similarities.