Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-13T17:22:41.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individualism and Collectivism: What Differences between Portuguese and Romanian Adolescents?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Laura Ciochinã  and
Luísa Faria
Laura Ciochinã
Affiliation:
Universidade do Porto (Portugal)
Luísa Faria*
Affiliation:
Universidade do Porto (Portugal)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Luísa Faria, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação. Universidade do Porto. Rua Dr. Manuel Pereira da Silva, s/n. 4200–392 Porto. (Portugal). E-mail: lfaria@fpce.up.pt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents the results of a series of preliminary comparisons, between the Portuguese and Romanian cultural contexts, on the individualism-collectivism (IND/COL) cultural dimension. The IND/COL was evaluated with the Individualism-Collectivism Questionnaire – ICQ –, constructed in New Zealand by Shulruf, Hattie and Dixon (2003, Anonymous Questionnaire of Self-Attitudes –AQSA), and adapted to the Portuguese and Romanian contexts by Ciochină and Faria (2007), using studies of confirmatory factor analysis. The ICQ composed by 26 items, 15 evaluating the IND scale– with three subscales (Uniqueness, Competition and Responsibility) –, and 11 evaluating the COL scale – with two subscales (Harmony and Advice) –, was administered to 395 subjects, 200 Portuguese and 195 Romanian, 10th and 12th graders. On the whole, in the Portuguese and Romanian samples, the multivariate and univariate statistical analyses evidenced the existence of two independent variables – gender and cultural context –, with significant effects, main and of interaction, on the scales and subscales of the ICQ. The results were discussed taking into consideration the specificities of the educational systems in the two cultural contexts, which are inevitably shaped by socio-cultural factors characteristic of the two countries considered in the present study – Portugal and Romania.

Este artículo expone los resultados de una serie de comparaciones preliminares entre los contextos culturales portugués y rumano en la dimensión cultural individualismo-colectivismo (IND/COL). IND/COL se evaluó con el Individualism-Collectivism Questionnaire – ICQ – construido en Nueva Zelanda por Shulruf, Hattie y Dixon (2003, el Anonymous Questionnaire of Self-Attitudes – AQSA) – adaptado a los contextos portugués y rumano por Ciochină y Faria (2007), empleando estudios de análisis factorial confirmatorio. El ICQ se compone de 26 ítems, 15 que evalúan la escala IND – con tres subescalas (Unicidad, Competición y Responsabilidad)– y 11 que evalúan la escala COL – con dos subescalas (Armonía y Consejo) – se administró a 395 sujetos, 200 portugueses y 195 rumanos, alumnos de 10a y 12a. En general, en las muestras portuguesa y rumana, los análisis estadísticos multivariados y univariados revelaron la existencia de dos variables independientes – género y contexto cultural –, con efectos significativos, tanto principal como de interacción, en las escalas y subescalas del ICQ. Se comentan los resultados considerando las especificidades de los sistemas educativos en los dos contextos culturales, inevitablemente moldeados por factores socioculturales característicos de los dos países considerados en este estudio – Portugal and Rumania.

Keywords

cultural contextindividualism-collectivismgendercontexto culturalindividualismo-colectivismogénero
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , November 2009 , pp. 555 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ciochină, L., & Faria, L. (2006a). A influência da dimenso cultural de individualismo-colectivismo nas concepções pessoais de inteligência de adolescentes portugueses e romenos [The influence of the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension on personal conceptions of intelligence of Portuguese and Romanian students]. In Machado, C., Almeida, L., Guisande, M. A., Gonçalves, M. & Ramalho, V. (Coords.), Actas da XI Conferência Internacional de Avaliação Psicológica: Formas e Contextos (pp. 1015–1026). Braga: Psiquilíbrios Edições.Google Scholar
Ciochina, L., & Faria, L. (2006b). Concepções pessoais de inteligência de estudantes portugueses e romenos. Um estudo preliminar de análise factorial confirmatória [Personal conceptions of intelligence. A preliminary study of confirmatory factor analysis]. Psychologica, 41, 171–191.Google Scholar
Ciochină, L., & Faria, L. (2006c). Individualismo e colectivismo: fundamentos conceptuais para o estudo intercultural das concepções pessoais de inteligência de estudantes portugueses e romenos [Individualism and collectivism: conceptual fundamentals for the intercultural study of personal conceptions of intelligence of Portuguese and Romanian students]. Psicologia, 20(2), 143–165.Google Scholar
Ciochină, L., & Faria, L. (2007). Preliminary validation study of the Individualism-Collectivism Questionnaire of Shulruf, Hattie and Dixon (2003) in the Portuguese and Romanian contexts. Paper presented at the IV Latin American Regional Congress of Cross–Cultural Psychology – Integrating Culture into Psychology, Julho de 2007, México City, México.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kagitçibasi, Ç. (1994). A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism: toward a new formulation. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitçibasi, Ç. Choi, S. S. & G., Yoon (Coords.), Individualism and collectivism. Theory, method and applications (pp. 52–66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Kagitçibasi, Ç.& Ataca, B. (2005). Value of children and family change: a three–decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(3), 317–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S. C., Gelfand, M. J., & Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 925–937.Google Scholar
Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: conceptual clarification and elaboration. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitçibasi, Ç.,Choi, S. S. & Yoon, G. (Coords.), Individualism and collectivism. Theory, method and applications (pp. 52–66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245–1267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAulifee, B. J., Jetten, J., Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Individualist and collectivist norms: when it's ok to go your own way. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neto, F. (1995). Alocentrismo nos estudantes universitários. Revista Portuguesa de Pedagogia, 29(1), 21–36.Google Scholar
Oyserman, D., Coon, M. H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.Google Scholar
Realo, A., & Allik, J. (1999). A cross–cultural study of collectivism: a comparison of American, Estonian, and Russian students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(2), 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Dixon, R. (2003). Development of a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism. Paper presented at the NZAREA/AARE Joint Conference 2003, Aucklund, New Zealand (http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/shu03265.pdf sítio consultado em 14/03/2005, às 11:35).Google Scholar
Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Dixon, R. (2007). Development of a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (http://jpa.sage.pub.com – consulted on 01/04/2007, at 11:30).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H.C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649–655.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (1999). Cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M., & Clark, F. (1985). Allocentric vs. idiocentric tendencies: convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Vjver, F., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voronov, M., & Singer, J. A. (2002). The myth of individualism-collectivism: a critical review. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(4), 461–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed