Jose H. Vargas, M.A. & Markus Kemmelmeier, Ph.D. University of Nevada, Reno April 24, 2009

1. Ethnicity and Contemporary U.S. Culture: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Horizontal–Vertical Individualism–Collectivism Jose H. Vargas, M.A. & Markus Kemmelmeier, Ph.D. University of Nevada, Reno April 24, 2009

2. Current Trends, Cultural Implications and Research Goals • Current Trends: • Increasing cultural diversity • U.S. Census  EurAm still majority population??? • In 2000 Census, Latinos surpassed AfrAm as largest minority group (12.5% vs. 12.3%, respectively) • Between 1990-2000, Latino pop increased 52.9% • In 2003, 35% of immigrants to U.S. came from Asian countries

3. Current Trends, Cultural Implications and Research Goals • Cultural Implications: • Traditionally, U.S. viewed as epitome of “individualism” (IND) • Given Census trends/cultural patterns  potential gradual dissolution of IND???

4. Individualism–Collectivism • Triandis’ Conceptualization (1990s): • IND: emotional independence from collectivities • COL: emotional interdependence on collectivities • Accounts for power distance

5. Individualism-Collectivism (con’t) • Hor-Ver INDCOL—Four Subscales: • Horizontal Individualism (HI): • Autonomy and uniqueness • e.g., “My personal identity is very important to me” • Horizontal Collectivism (HC): • Social harmony and social equality • e.g., “My happiness depends very much on the happiness of those around me” • Vertical Individualism (VI): • Personal achievement and competition • e.g., “Competition is the law of nature” • Vertical Collectivism (VC): • Social hierarchies and subordination of personal needs to ingroup • e.g., “I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group”

6. Reported Differences in INDCOL among U.S. Ethnic Groups (con’t) *TWO IMPORTANT STUDIES* • Coon & Kemmelmeier’s Study (2001): • Interesting Results: • AfrAms/AsiAms score higher on COL than EurAms • AfrAms displayed highest IND scores • Conclusions: • Not all ‘U.S. minorities’ display same form/degree of IND and COL • Ethnic diff in INDCOL may be linked to ethnic groups’ unique histories

7. Reported Differences in INDCOL among U.S. Ethnic Groups (con’t) • Oyserman et al.’s Study (2002): • Most comprehensive meta-analysis on INDCOL to date • Findings from Within-U.S. Comparisons: • AfrAms were highest on IND (not EurAms) • EurAms and LatAms did not differ on IND • Only comparisons between EurAms and AsiAms display expected pattern (i.e., EurAms were higher on IND and lower on COL vis-à-vis AsiAms) • Implication of Study: may be premature to assume “all U.S. minorities” are collectivists

8. U.S. Ethnic Groups: Different Histories, Different Cultural Orientations • European American Sociohistory: • Traditional “carriers” of IND • African American Sociohistory: • Majority of current AfrAms are descendants of slaves • Asian American Sociohistory: • AsiAms emphasis on family (e.g., filial piety) • High degree of “assimilation” • Latino American Sociohistory: • LatAms descend from immigrants/native cultures • Strong familial leanings, religious influence & “work ethic”

9. Research Question and Goals • Central Research Question: • Are increases in cult. diversity promoting divergence or convergence of cult. orientations among ethnic/racial Americans? • Research Goals: • To address concerns about IND and COL among ethnic/racial Americans • Meta-analysis of Horizontal-Vertical IND-COL (HVIC)

10. Meta-Analysis • Inclusion Criteria: • Study uses INDCOL scale (Triandis & co.) • Study includes U.S. participants from at least 2 of the 4 ‘ethnic/racial groups’ • Study provides RELEVANT data on at least 1 of the 4 HVIC • Current Sample Size = 22 independent samples

11. Meta-Analysis (con’t) • Statistical Data: • Aggregated scale reliabilities (i.e., Cronbach’s α) • Aggregated mean differences (i.e., Cohen’s d) • Aggregated intercorrelations (i.e., Pearson’s r)

12. Results—Aggregated Subscale Reliabilities *Most mean weighted effect sizes (MWESs) exceeded alpha = .70 *Except for EurAm, non-sig Qwi stats suggest ‘homogeneity’ of MWESs *For all 4 groups, HC and VI scales function similarly

13. Results—Aggregated Mean Differences *Six “paired comparison types” *Only two stat sig. effects (in bold)

14. Results—Aggregated Intercorrelations *All but 4 ‘corr coefficients’ were stat sig. in positive direction *One ‘corr coefficient’ was stat sig. in negative direction *Data suggest that the 4 HVIC subscales are less ‘orthogonal’ than previously argued

15. Discussion—Conclusions • Reliabilities and Means suggest ethnic/racial similarity (e.g., HC & VI scales) • Some mean diff indicate few areas of cultural diff • Correlations suggest pervasive group diff in “scale links” • EurAms and AsiAms did not differ on either subscales, inconsistent w/ past research • Future research on INDCOL should link it to H-V and sociohistory

16. Thank you. Any questions?

17. References Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1986). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Boswell, T. E. (1986). A split labor market analysis of discrimination against Chinese immigrants, 1850-1882. American Sociological Review, 51, 352-371. Guzman, B. (2001). The Hispanic Population: Census 2000 Brief. (Report No. C2KBR/01-3). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved on October 10, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/prod/ 2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Quantitative synthesis of social psychological research. In H. T. Reis and C. M. Judd, (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Jones Jr., H. B. (1997). The Protestant ethic: Weber’s model and the empirical literature. Human Relations, 50, 757-778. Jones, R. (1997). Individualism: Eighteenth century origins—Twentieth century consequences. Western Journal of Black Studies, 21, 20-33. Kark, R., & Dijk, D. V. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500-528. Kinder, D. R., & Mendelberg, T. (2000). Individualism reconsidered: Principles and prejudice in contemporary American opinion. In D. O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds.), Racialized politics: The debate about racism in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lee, E. (2005). Orientalisms in the Americas: A hemispheric approach to Asian American history. Journal of Asian American Studies, 8, 235-256. McKinnon, J. (2001). The Black Population: Census 2000 Brief. (Report No. C2KBR/01-5). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved on October 10, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/prod/ 2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf. Newton, R. R., & Rudestam, K. E. (1999). Your statistical consultant: Answers to your data analysis questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.. Obiakor, F. E., & Afolayan, M. O. (2007). African immigrant families in the United States: Surviving the sociocultural tide. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15, 265-270. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72. Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407-415. Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128. Yeh, C. J., Kim, A. B., Pituc, S. T., & Atkins, M. (2008). Poverty, loss, and resilience: The story of Chinese immigrant youth. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 34-48.