This study examined the influence of individualism-collectivism on communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships. Differences were predicted in ingroup and outgroup communication in collectivistic cultures. It was also hypothesized that self-monitoring and predicted-outcome value (POV) of the relationships also affect communication processes in these relationships. Data were collected in Hong Kong and Japan (collectivistic) and in Australia and the United States (individualistic). Results supported the prediction regarding the influence of cultural variability on ingroup and outgroup communication, as well as those regarding the influence of self-monitoring and POV.
The discussion on geocultural theory has underscored the urgency for us to re-examine the way cultural differences are handled in academic discourse. Boundaries need to be drawn, because European universality neglects cultural and also paradigm differences. This article argues that as locking universality and particularity in a dualist paradigm is part of the problem, drawing boundaries to concepts and theories will lead to further problems. Borrowing from the Chinese yin/yang dynamic worldview and the Kuhnian notion of incommensurability, the author proposes a methodological framework in which commensurability, rather than universality, is the major concern. The commensurability model and the universality model are compared with examples to illustrate how the former may help advance theory development from a local perspective.
Individualism and collectivism form a paired concept frequently used in studying cross-cultural communication. Yet conflicting findings on collectivism have led researchers to question its applicability across cultures, especially concerning the meaning of "collective". By definition, "collective" refers to large groups that, through a common identity, tie the members together into a community. The scale to measure collectivism, however, has often used in-group members as examples to explore the way respondents relate to others. As these "others" were used to stand for "collectives", something that they are not, the meaning of collectivism became muddied, and its validity and reliability suffered. A re-examination of the collectivism concept from a Chinese standpoint is called for, as Confucian teachings have been considered as the philosophical basis for collectivism, and East Asian societies -especially Chinese societies -have often been seen as prototypical collectivist cultures. The purpose of this paper is, however, not to propose a Chinese version of collectivism. Rather, the goal is to clearly distinguish between "collective" and "others" in studying collectivism. Based on an in-depth analysis of Chinese and Confucian cultures and the literature on guanxi, it is argued that the concept of relationalism will more closely reflect the way self relates to others in these societies. Moreover, a tripartite model of individualism, relationalism, and collectivism will provide a more comprehensive framework for the study of the way self relates to others in a cross-cultural context.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.